THE
HAYWARD FILE

This file deals
with a thesis that many obscure forces have tried to
annihilate. The title is: The Fate of Jews in German Hands: An
Historical Enquiry into the Development and Significance of
Holocaust Revisionism, written in 1993 by Joel S. A. Hayward, in
New-Zealand. This is by far the best neutral assessment of
what Holocaust Revisionism is about.Several attempts have been made
to display this work on the Web. It has been removed already three
times under pressure exercised by lobbies more interested in
mythology than in history . Now, two differents websites have taken
up the gauntlet. You may find the thesis at two places under two
different formats. We are in no way responsible for these
sites:

The Fate of Jews in
German Hands:
An Historical Enquiry into the Development and Significance
of Holocaust Revisionism

by Joel S. A. Hayward (1993)

Another scholarly
work has been assailed by the same black forces, also in Canterbury:
a MA thesis inHistory: Judgement on Nuremberg, by Steven
Daniel Eaton. We have displayed this work, with a preface by Robert
Countess, which says a lot about the circumstances of the
publication, or no-publication, os this thesis.

Judgement
on Nuremberg

An Historical Enquiry into the Validity
of Article Six of the London Charter as an Expression of
Contemporary Law

Steven D. Eaton(University of Canterbury, New Zealand,
1994)

suppressed on the author's demand

In 1993, Mr Joel Hayward, then student at Cantorbery University (New
Zealand) wrote a thesis. The subject was Holocaust Revisionism. Mr
Hayward was not himself a revisionist. But in order to write an
objectivre assessment, he listened to both sides, revisionist and
anti-revisionnist. This is easy to understand from his thesis and
from his "aknowledgements" in the thesis:

"I have chosen, of course, not to
side with one school of thought against the other, but to seek
critical distance and get "both sides of the story".
Noting that many scholars involved in the Holocaust controversy
wear their moral values on their sleeves, I have consciously
attempted not to do so, and not to let my own values harden into
biases. Thus, I have contacted and on many occasions received and
used material from both anti-Revisionist and Revisionist
organizations and individuals. I make no apologies for this and I
am tiling to acknowledge on this page the assistance I received
from members of both camps, even from those whose views or actions
I personally find unpalatable."

We, revisionists, have never considered Dr.
Hayward as one of us, but only as someone who attempted to build an
objective point of view. Although he heavily relied on Jewish
sources and help from such unpalatable caracters such as the Bnai
Brith or Searchlight, he must have encountered
difficulties, since in his aknowledgements, he thanks"Margaret
and (the late) Allen Stott, who defended my right to intellectual
autonomy when immoderate and uninformed factions challenged
it". He did not elaborate on these "immoderate and
uniformed factions", but we know who they are.
He passed his thesis in 1993. The university and the
"immoderate factions" knew of this. Hayward went on with
his studies (he later got a PhD on other historical subjects). He
took the precaution of imposing a five-year ban on his thesis in the
Library of the University in Canterbury. We sent a spy there and the
spy reported: "It's in the catalogue. But when I tried to look
at it in the thesis section of the library, the supervisor came
rushing out to tell me there was a "no access without written
permission by the author" restriction on it -- which
incidentally comes off in January (5 years)". In the meantime,
Hayward had sent copies of his thesis to a number of revisionists.
One or possibly several persons got it in France.

Then we noticed an anonymous attempt to display the thesis on
Internet. That did not last very long. But long enough for us to
acquire the computerized version of the thesis. Then came a second
attempt to post it on the Web. We later learned, from a letter sent
by Mr Hayward to Greg Raven (15 dec. 1999) this:

"Thank you for notifying me about this ratbag's attempt to
post my old MA thesis on the internet. I appreciate your kindness.
Truly.
I succeeded in having the server company delete my thesis after
this mysterious person posted it last time, and I will try this
method again."

And for the second time, the thesis disappeared. During all these
years, we have remained passive. We did not approve of M. Hayward
trying to cover up the known fact that he had written the now
controversial thesis. But we did not press to display it, although
it was sleeping in our archives.
Then something new happened which gave a new dimension to this small
affair. In the pseudo-judiciary persecution of Frederick Toben in
Australia, he, Toben, sent a copy of the thesis (which he had
received from Hayward himself) to the so called "Human
Rights" Kangaroo Court. The Jewish persecutors started howling.
And lodged complaints in Canterbury. A world press campaign was
launched against Hayward who promptly got on his knees and licked
the shoes that were kicking him in the ass, an exercise that
requires a considerable spine flexibility. Just try.
First, let's see letters send by Hayward and Toben, in chronological
order:

Dear Sir,
Please permit me to address several inaccurate points made in the
article "New Zealand Connection to Internet Incitement
Case", published in the December/January issue of your fine
newspaper.
First, Dr Fredrick Toben violated my rights as an author by
presenting a copy of my 1993 Master of Arts thesis to the Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) in Sydney. He did
so even after I had expressly forbidden him -- in writing on 17
October -- from reproducing or distributing my work in part or in
whole.
Second, his reported claim that my thesis (written when I was
still a Masters student anyway) is somehow "proof" that
the Holocaust did not happen is preposterous, and may yet bring Dr
Toben and I into litigation.
I state emphatically to your readers my rock-solid belief, based
on extensive archival research and a thorough reading of published
sources, that European Jewry did experience a ghastly holocaust.
To be more specific, I believe European Jews suffered dreadfully
during the 1930s and especially during World War II, when Germans
and others maltreated, enslaved and murdered great numbers.
I can make no stronger statement regarding those events -- which I
lament -- than one I made in the very thesis that Dr Toben
illegally presented to the HREOC. On page 335 of that thesis I
stated (and now I quote verbatim): "The present writer [that
is, me] considers the Nazis' brutal and destructive treatment of
Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Communists, Jehovah's Witnesses, the
physically and mentally ill and other such groups to be abhorrent.
As a libertarian he also finds repugnant the Nazis' assault on
freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press,
and considers their persecution of political dissenters and
academic and artistic free-thinkers worthy of the international
condemnation it was and continues to be met with."
I strongly dislike much of what Dr Toben and others write about
Jews in their newsletter. Even when I seek proper scholarly
"distance" from my subjective feelings of unabashed
warmth towards Jewish affairs, I still consider that material
anti-Semitic, and I have told them this.
For example, on 21 September 1998, I wrote to Dr Toben in order to
make my position clear. Part of my letter stated: "I am
unhappy with the heavy focus on things Jewish in Issue No. 81
(October 1998), a focus so one-sided in its presentation of Jewish
activities -- only negative activities get mentioned -- that I
must conclude that the Adelaide Institute's editorial team
possesses strong bias against Jews and wishes to present them to
readers in a negative light." After identifying what I
considered the anti-Semitic sections, I added: "I wish to
register my unhappiness at this anti-Jewish focus in the strongest
terms." I have no involvement in the ferocious debate between
Holocaust Revisionists and their opponents. I find it distasteful
and refuse to be drawn into it. As a scholar I am much too busy;
as a person I am much too sensible.
I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr Jeremy Jones, Executive
Vice-President, Executive Council of Australian Jewry. I hope
these comments clarify my position.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Joel Stuart A. Hayward,
Lecturer, School of History, Philosophy and Politics Massey
University, Palmerston North New Zealand

The author seems to forget that the fine
sentence he quotes from his page 335 were preceded by the following
sentences: "Finally, the gassing claim is irreconcilable
with the overwhelming weight of evidence on the nature of
official Nazi policy on the Jewish question. That policy, our
careful and unbiased reading of the evidence suggested, was not
one of total extermination, but was a brutal policy of
deportation and forced labour.
This departure from accepted opinion on the gas chambers does not
represent an ideological defence of one school of historical thought
on this issue against the other. Nor is it an attempt to
rehabilitate the Third Reich." (Our emphasis)

Dear Sir
My attention has been drawn to a letter written to you on 4
December 1998 by Dr Joel Hayward of Massey University, New
Zealand. Permit me briefly to respond to Dr Hayward's assertion
that I have violated his rights.
Dr Hayward sent me his original thesis, and he invited me (in
writing) to use it in any way I liked. This permission to use his
thesis was subsequently withdrawn -- but by that time I had made
copies of the thesis and distributed it to our associates and
various members of the media, including Mr Bernard Freedman of The
Australian Jewish News, Canberra office. From other sources I
have heard that Dr Hayward has done this in the past, i.e. first
offered his thesis, then withdrawing it, and this since 1993! It
is thus wrong to state that I made illegal use of his thesis.
In some extended email correspondence I indicated to Dr Hayward
that I did not share his attitude as regards the five-year embargo
on publishing his thesis as that infringes against the
"publish or perish" argument, as well as violating the
scientific ideal of having a free flow of information. I consider
it an immoral stance -- especially for an academic.
Further, I have never claimed the thesis is "proof" that
the Holocaust never happened. The term `holocaust' is much misused
and I am now tending to move in the direction of J-C Pressac who
avoids the term `Holocaust' and, instead, speaks of a
"massive massacre". Jewish groups, in any case, speak of
the `Shoah'. You, of course, know the tremendous pressure that Dr
Hayward is under because he dared to state that there were no
gassings -- extermination of European Jewry, and that what the
Germans did was forcibly remove same. The current Irving-Lipstadt
trial in London further accentuates the issues raised by Dr
Hayward in his thesis.
My seven-month imprisonment, from 8 April to 11 November 1999, in
Mannheim Prison, Germany, for allegedly `defaming the memory of
the dead', and `inciting hatred', confirms that Dr Hayward's work
would prevent a lot of suffering amongst those persons who have a
moral conscience -- who value the search for truth in all matters
above all else.
There simply is no proof that gassings occurred at Auschwitz
concentration camp, or at any other such concentration camps.
Unfortunately this truth cannot emerge because of the number of
judicial murders perpetrated by the Allies at the end of the war.
For example, the owner of the factory that produced the delousing
agent, Zyklon-B, was hanged, as was Rudolf Höss, the Auschwitz
camp commandant. Such judicial murders locked the Allies into
perpetuating this story of extermination. Similarly, the murder of
Eichmann did likewise. Today the imprisonment in Germany of
individuals who dare to reject the `Holocaust dogma' merely
reinforces the injustice of withholding Hayward's thesis from
wider distribution. Adelaide Institute is on record as stating
that were proof of any such gassings to emerge, then it would
publish this proof. We are not defending a certain ideological
position -- except truth, of course!
On a personal note, at no time in the attacks upon my person is it
stated that I make this provision of `publishing proof of
gassings' in my disseminating my professional opinion about the
allegation that Germans systematically exterminated European Jewry
in homicidal gas chambers. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why
this kind of `lying by omission' is taking place whenever anyone
attacks our position in this `Holocaust' debate.
Most sincerely
Dr Fredrick Töben
Copy: Dr J Hayward, HREOC, The Nizkor Project.

Toben has been a target, for quite
sometimes now, of Jewish organizations trying to have somehow the
Adelaide Institute shut down. They have been trying their hand with
this bizarre Aussie institution, called Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission (HREOC), which has the same ambiguous nature
as the platypus, looking like a mammal but laying eggs. This is a
court, but not a real one. It delivers sentences but they are not
real ones. It could be construed as a kind of preliminary of a real
court, although it looks like a real one. The Canadians have a
similar hybrid monster. But nobody else.
In the course of his dealing with that hermaphrodite body, Toben
send them a copy of Hayward's thesis, triggering an attempt to
destroy him through the destruction of Hayward. The former student,
then teaching military history in Massey, North Palmerston (New
Zealand), is instrumentalized by people who want to annihilate any
suspicion of an opposition. Understandably, Hayward does not want
anything from this. He sank into prosternation in the vain hope of
removing himself from the battle field. He does not know that
apologies and recantations are only reasons for more pressures to
extract from the unfortunate recanter more apologies and more
retractions. See the Catholic Church or the Japanese governement,
for that matter, who now routinely apologize for WWII on a weekly
basis. And soon every morning. To no avail.

The consequence has been a University inquiry to placate the demand
by Jewish organizations that Hayward should be stripped of his MA
title. This is a classical ploy from Jewish organizations against
people they perceive as enemies. Dr Stäglich, in Germany, author of
The Auschwitz Myth, was stripped of his legal degree, with
the help of a nazi-era law. Henri Roques, who has earned a degree in
Nantes studying Gerstein papers, was later despoiled by the ministry
on the basis of legal minutiae which would warrant the annulment of
50% of the theses passed in France. Leuchter was destroyed by the
admission he had to make that he was not registered as an engineer
with the Massachusetts Commonwealth, a situation shared by one
engineer out of two in Massachusetts, etc. Swiss lawyers at the
Amaudruz trial (April 2000) alleged that Faurisson's doctoral thesis
has been cancelled, a pure invention. Jean Plantin, who got his
degrees in history in Lyon, had later published revisionist works..
After a violent press campaign, he has been stripped, ten years
later, of his diplomas. And two years later, a higher court said it
was impossible. What had been given had been given. The action
against Hayward comes into perfectly usual pattern. First, call
for denounciation, then strip him from his diplomas, and then have
him kicked out of his job. Destroy his social being in order to
destroy his intellectual authority.

Consider this denounciation:

WORLD REPORT

New Zealand
Jews want thesis yanked

SYDNEY, Australia (Jewish
Telegraphic Agency) -- Jewish leaders in New Zealand are calling
on a university to withdraw a 1993 master's thesis that questioned
whether Jews were killed in gas chambers during the Holocaust.
The author of the thesis, Joel Hayward, recently sent a letter to
the New Zealand Jewish Chronicle saying that his thesis'
"conclusions are wrong" and that he now believes the
Nazis did, indeed, kill 6 million Jews.Jewish Bulletin News of Northern California
<http://www.jewishsf.com/bk000421/iworld.shtml>

Then action is taken:

University of Canterbury (NZ)

UC Diary
19 May 2000

[....]Hayward thesis working party namedSir Ian Barker, a retired High Court judge and former university
chancellor, will chair the Working Party investigating the master's
thesis of Dr Joel Hayward.
Sir Ian, of Auckland, who was a High Court judge for 21 years and
chancellor of the University of Auckland for eight years, will be
joined by Emeritus Professor Anne Trotter of Wellington and
Professor Stuart Macintyre of Melbourne.
Professor Trotter is a historian and former assistant
vice-chancellor (humanities) at the University of Otago. Professor
Macintyre is Dean of the Faculty of Arts at the University of
Melbourne and Ernest Scott Professor of History.
At its 26 April meeting the University of Canterbury Council called
for an independent investigation of the circumstances in which Dr
Hayward was awarded a master of arts degree with first-class honours
in 1993 after submitting his thesis, entitled The Fate of Jews in
German Hands: An Historical Enquiry Into the Development and
Significance of Holocaust Revisionism.
The Working Party's terms of reference require it to investigate
widely and report to the University Council.
It will enquire into: how the topic/research proposal was approved
and whether it changed during the course of the candidate's work on
the thesis; the supervision of the thesis at Canterbury and its
examination both internally and externally; the embargoing of the
thesis in the University Library; any other relevant matters of
significance which arise..
The party will also consider the request of the New Zealand Jewish
Council that the University revoke the master's degree and
substitute it with a bachelor of arts (honours), and whether that
request is legally possible under the relevant legislation and
University statutes.
The Working Party will determine its own procedures and seek legal
advice as appropriate.
Sir Ian expects the investigation and report to take several months.
He has advised that the Working Party will make no public comment on
the matter but will present its report to the University Council.
There will be no further comment by the Council until the report has
been presented.
<http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/diary/2000/D000519.htm>
(extract) In May 2003, that part of "UC Diary" has
disappeared from the web (19 and 20 May 2000. Funny isn't it ?

Toben tried to intervene. He came out with some kinds of excuses for
Hayward abject recantation. He insisted we should not pass moral
judgements on cowards. OK. Fair enough. We understand a man has to
earn his life; he has to feed his wife whom he thanked in his
thesis, because, he said, she made such a good coffee.

SYDNEY, Australia, April 18 (JTA)
-- A case of Holocaust denial has heated up in New Zealand.

Jewish leaders in New Zealand
are calling on Canterbury University to withdraw a 1993 master's
thesis that questioned whether Jews were killed in gas chambers
during the Holocaust.

The author of the thesis, Joel
Hayward, recently sent a letter to the New Zealand Jewish
Chronicle saying that his thesis' "conclusions are
wrong" and that he now believes the Nazis did, indeed, kill 6
million Jews.

Hayward, who is now a senior
lecturer in history at Massey University, received his masters'
degree from the University of Canterbury in 1993 on the topic of
Holocaust revisionism.

Hayward's thesis shared many
of the conclusions of David Irving, who was labeled a Holocaust
denier by a British judge after he lost the libel suit he had
filed against American scholar Deborah Lipstadt.

The president of the New
Zealand Jewish Council, David Zwartz, said he applauds Hayward's
recent letter, but added "the University's reputation for
scholarship is in question as long as it stands by this thesis,
which has been repudiated even by its own author."

The official position of
Canterbury University is that Hayward wrote an addendum
to his work that "sets out the perspectives he now has on
this sensitive issue and the validity of the references he used in
the thesis."

But Professor Dov Bing, of the
department of political science and public policy at the
University of Waikato in New Zealand, said the addendum is
misleading and does not go as far as the outright apology in
Hayward's letter to the Jewish Chronicle.

"I believe the addendum
should be removed and replaced with a clear and precise statement
from Dr. Hayward," Bing said..

Australian Holocaust denier
Fredrick Toben recently submitted Hayward's thesis in his defense
against a complaint filed under the country's racial hatred laws.
The complaint, filed by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry,
alleges that Holocaust denial has no academic acceptance.

Hayward subsequently wrote to
the commissioner hearing the complaint, saying that Toben is an
anti- Semite. Hayward added that he opposes Holocaust denial.

Let's now turn on Fredrick Toben's
comments, and his greetings to Dr Joel Hayward and Mr Jeremy Jones:

Another recantation -- for the
sake of wife, children, and job. Like David Cole, Joel Hayward
joins the group of Jewish people who, for whatever reason, retract
their earlier clear-sighted and honest appraisal of the homicidal
gas chamber allegation.
Then again, who would deny Dr Hayward the right to change his
views, his honestly held professional opinion on the homicidal gas
chamber allegation? It is his right to change his mind on this
contentious issue. Changing ones opinion is the hallmark of a
thinking person, otherwise dogmatism charges can arise. Anyone
who decries Dr Hayward as a coward must remain fair and just to
him by according him natural justice -- giving him a right of
reply.
Hence it is now quite a legitimate task to demand of blond,
blue-eyed Dr Hayward that he provide us with his rationale, his reasoned
arguments upon which that change of opinion is based. What
information since 1993 has come Dr Hayward's way that causes him
to revise his 1993 views about the matter of the homicidal gas
chamber allegations, about the six million dead figure?
Adelaide Institute has on a number of occasions stated that should
new evidence emerge concerning the homicidal gas chamber
allegations at Auschwitz, and then we will unhesitatingly publish
such information. We would be foolish to suppress such
information. Why should we cling to our current professional
opinion that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that
homicidal gas chambers existed at Auschwitz?
Dr Joel Hayward, I beg you to advise me on this matter. You have
behaved like a true gentleman, a scholarly revisionist -- a
thinker who revises his professional opinion upon gaining new
information from some source. Please advise me what is this
information, and is the source impeccable? Please also inform me
whether you have received further threats from Jewish groups about
the safety of yourself and that of your family. I do know that Mr
Jones has been corresponding with you. Has he pressured you into
recanting? This pressure may also appear in the form of a letter
subtly reminding you that your societal standing will be affected
if you do not recant.
An example of one such letter is in our possession, written by
Alan Goldberg, QC, -- now Justice Goldberg of the Federal Court.
Therein he attempts to `persuade' a former South Australian
parliamentarian, Mrs Joyce Steele, OBE, to disendorse John
Bennett's book, Your Rights. Mrs Steele did not fear Alan
Goldberg's threats and she continued, until her death, to endorse
Bennett's book -- as did recently the Herald Sun in a
review of Your Rights 2000. But then pressure was put on
the newspaper editor and on the Law Society of Victoria who
engaged the reviewer to write the piece -- and bingo, a public
apology is made for having written and published a positive review
of Bennett's work. The days of applying subtle pressure, as in the
past, are gone. It is now outright censorship of views that do not
subscribe to the Holocaust dogma.
So, Dr Hayward, if you are the subject of such blackmail, rest
easy because others have received such treatment before you. Be
not afraid of these blackmailers -- all you can lose is your life!
Be courageous and firm and call their bluff because these
blackmailers deserve nothing but contempt because they stifle free
speech and they hate truth seeking. It is terribly liberating to
become fearless of those who tell lies and try to rape your mind.
In other words, these immoral persons deny others the right to
think and to speak freely, thereby robbing them of their humanity.
I charge Jeremy Jones with committing a crime against humanity by
stating publicly that he wishes "to stop them from
functioning", meaning anyone who does not share his
world-view.
I am surprised to learn that Jeremy Jones, who has taken me to the
Human Rights Commission, quotes from Hayward's letter to the
commissioner. Did Jones receive a copy of it or did Hayward write
to Jones separately, advising him of having called me an
anti-Semite? To my knowledge Hayward has not personally advised me
that he considers me an anti-Semite.
In any case, the term anti-Semite is a nonsense word, especially
if used by those who claim to be Jewish but are not Semites
themselves, such as the Khazar-Jews; and isn't that about 80 per
cent of those who call themselves Jewish?
Being Jewish is a state of mind. I know non-Jews people who
display the so-called Jewish syndrome -- eternal victim hood! It
is all such an immature form of behaviour -- but the shekels
jingle.
Jones fears the moral virtue of truth telling -- and that's very
sad. He is a man possessed by hatred for anyone who does not agree
with his worldview -- and he thus loves to mentally rape those who
do not submit to his morally unsound desires. This is mental
pedophilia! He sees hatred everywhere in the world, yet he will
not reflect on how his behaviour is a self-fulfilling prophecy: he
is projecting his inner hatreds upon the world, and then seeks to
justify this personal arousal within him by blaming others for
generating hatred. His mind-set is the wellspring of hatred.
An Australian of Palestinian descent living in Adelaide informed
me that the problem with people who call themselves Jewish is that
after 50 years' residence in Israel, there has been no
archaeological proof that would sustain their claim to the
Palestinian lands. I heard similar comments during my Iranian
visit in December 1999. I raise this as an issue and not as a
statement of historical fact.. It would explain why softly spoken
Jeremy Jones has that urgency and fanaticism in his eyes -- the
lost cause syndrome.
What hard road truth has to travel before emerging victoriously.
Reflecting on the lost Irving defamation action, why did Justice
Gray not visit the Auschwitz-Birkenau site where the remains of
the alleged Krema II gas chamber are still to be found? Is it
perhaps because the issue would then have been resolved in
Irving's favour?
Since 1996, when Jeremy Jones began to hound me by using a
government instrumentality, HREOC, I have asked why will Jeremy
Jones not talk with me, but rather talk about me through the
courts? That's legal persecution, surely. Mr Jones, if you are an
upright man, if you are serious and sincere about finding out the
truth, if you are an honest and courageous man who lacks fear and
loves the truth, then travel with me to Auschwitz-Krema II. Do not
be as foolish as Professor Lipstadt and exclaim, "There is no
debate about the homicidal gas chambers allegation".
In 1994 Professor Deborah Lipstadt advised her Australian audience
there is no debate about the Holocaust. She was plainly wrong. Was
she then telling a lie or was she merely ignorant of the facts? Or
did she indulge in a bit of wishful thinking, of believing her own
propaganda, then manipulating her environment to activate the
self-fulfilling prophecy? Do we now force her into the court to
recant this statement of hers, and admit that there is a roaring
debate about the Holocaust, and that she belongs to the group that
wishes to stifle debate on this contentious historical issue?
Oh, Mr Jones, one final message: I have no fear of anyone who
fears truth seeking and truth telling. Have you? Let's not be
euphemistic about this matter, Mr Jones. Those that oppose
Adelaide Institute, we have found, are either ignorant of the
physical facts of the debate, or they are outright liars. What are
you -- a liar or ignorant of the facts?

The campaign had been launched. For instance, we saw the following
articles, among many others:

University
gave MA for thesis denying Holocaust

David Cohen
in Wellington

New Zealand's University of
Canterbury -- an institution that has long prided itself on its
reputation for being more English than England -- has said this
week that it regretted any distress caused by its award of a
master's degree to a student for a thesis that denied the
Holocaust.
But the university, based in Christchurch, has not accepted a call
from a national Jewish group for the degree to be revoked.Canterbury now has the dubious distinction of being the only
known accredited university in the west to have conferred an MA
for a thesis that even its author now admits was a work of
Holocaust revisionism.
Although written in 1994, the contents of the thesis by Joel
Hayward -- now a military historian at Massey University in New
Zealand -- were embargoed for five years at the request of its
author and with the support of his university supervisor.
The work might still be under wraps were it not for the recent
libel case in London brought by David Irving against Deborah
Lipstadt and Penguin Books. She had called him a "falsifier
of history" for his claim that the Holocaust never happened.Mr Hayward was invited but refused to testify for Mr Irving, whom
the judge in the case described as an avowed anti-Semite. Irving
lost.
Mr Irving had been impressed with the arguments in the thesis,
which claimed that the idea of gas chambers being used to kill
Jews during the second world war was propaganda invented by
Britain, the US and Jewish lobbyists in the thrall of Zionist
forces.
In his work, Mr Hayward argued that far fewer than 6m Jews,
perhaps fewer than 1m, perished in concentration camps during the
time of Nazi rule across most of Europe. He also said that Hitler
could not be held personally responsible for any suffering
experienced by European Jews. He has since apologised for the
thesis, The Fate of Jews in German Hands: An Historical Inquiryinto the Development and Significance of Holocaust Revisionism.
In a letter to a national newspaper last month, The New Zealand
Jewish Chronicle, Mr Hayward expressed remorse over the
"mistakes I made as an inexperienced student".
He was, he said, "inexperienced in the historian's craft and
knew relatively little about the Holocaust and its complex
historiography."He has also asked the university to withdraw his thesis from
its library, a request the institution turned down. He has not
endorsed the call for his degree to be annulled.
Citing traditions of academic freedom and independent inquiry,
officials have said their institution cannot, even if it were of a
mind to, rescind Mr Hayward's degree.
Daryl Le Grew, the vice-chancellor, announced this week that an
independent inquiry would be held into the situation and whether
the request for the degree's annulment has any legal standing.

The Guardian, May 18, 2000

University
won't revoke degree for student who queried the Holocaust

David Cohen
/ Wellington
(June 5, 2000) The University of Canterbury, in Christchurch, New
Zealand, has refused to revoke a master's degree it awarded to a
student for a thesis that questions the existence of the
Holocaust. Citing academic traditions of open scholarship, the
institution has told Jewish community leaders it cannot rescind
the degree earned six years ago by Joel Hayward, who argued that
the notion of gas chambers being used to kill Jews during World
War II was propaganda invented by the US and Britain.
In his work, Hayward also claimed that far fewer than 6 million
Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, and that, to the extent
any collective suffering was experienced by European Jewry, Hitler
had not been aware of its nature and could not be held personally
responsible for it.
Hayward, who is now a lecturer in military history at Massey
University on New Zealand's north island, recently expressed
regret over the thesis, entitled "The Fate of Jews in
German Hands: An Historical Enquiry into the Development and
Significance of Holocaust Revisionism," which came into
the public domain last year, following a five-year embargo made at
the request of its writer. But bootleg copies of the thesis
have long been in circulation among revisionist groups.
Hayward turned down an invitation to testify on behalf of David
Irving in his London libel action against the American academic
Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, who had accused Irving of
falsifying history by making virtually the same claims. Instead,
in a letter to the New Zealand Jewish Chronicle, Hayward
apologized for the "mistakes I made as an inexperienced
student."
He has since asked the university to withdraw his thesis from
circulation -- a request the institution also declined -- although
he has stopped short of endorsing the call for his own degree to
be revoked.
The appeal to cancel the degree was made by the New Zealand Jewish
Council, a national organization whose spokesman has likened the
local controversy to a well-publicized case in France, in 1986,
where the University of Nantes awarded a doctorate for a thesis
written along similar lines to Hayward's. The French Ministry of
Higher Education subsequently revoked the degree.
That could not happen in New Zealand, where the eight publicly
funded national universities are given full independence on
scholastic issues.The Jerusalem Report.com
<http://www.jrep.com/Reporter/Article-7.html>

Then some kind of pressure is threatened on
the academic authorities, as in the case of Serge Thion in France.

Tuesday, May 23 2000 08:29 18 Iyar 5760 :

Inquiry
into New Zealand master's thesis that denies Shoah

By Mike Regan

AUCKLAND, New Zealand (May 23)
- A retired New Zealand High Court judge, Sir Ian Barker of
Auckland, will head a working party to investigate a master's
thesis which questions key assumptions about the Holocaust,
following its disclosure in the New Zealand Jewish Chronicle and a
letter to the chancellor of the University of Canterbury from the
New Zealand Jewish Council (NZJC) requesting that the author of
the thesis, Dr. Joel Hayward, be stripped of his degree. Criticism
of Canterbury University was first raised in the Chronicle
last month when it revealed the University had awarded first class
honors to Hayward for his master's thesis entitled: "The
Fate of the Jews in German Hands: An Historical Enquiry Into the
Development and Significance of Holocaust Revisionism."
Among the claims in the thesis were: that fewer than two million
Jews died; that the gas chambers at Auschwitz didn't exist; that
there were no plans for the mass murder of Jews; and that the
discredited Leuchter Report was a valid piece of research. The
working party will look into how Joel Hayward's 1993 master's
thesis was awarded. It will enquire into how the topic and
research proposal were approved and whether they changed during
the course of his work on the thesis; the supervision of the
thesis and its examination within Canterbury and externally; the
embargoing of the thesis for more than five years, and any other
relevant matters of significance which may arise. In completing
the thesis, Hayward consulted widely among Holocaust revisionists,
including David Irving, who at one time says he asked Hayward to
write his biography. At the time of writing the thesis Hayward had
written at least one article refuting the claims of the Leuchter
Report. Nevertheless he still used its claims to back up his
conclusions in the thesis. As soon as the thesis was accepted,
Hayward imposed an embargo on it, allowing only those with his
permission to see it. He gave copies of the thesis to Dr.
Frederick Toben in Australia and to David Irving, but to no one
else. It remained embargoed until last year, at which time he
endeavored to have it revoked. The University refused and instead
offered to allow him to write an addendum
to be read with the thesis. The Chronicle published the
story together with a letter of apology to the Jewish community of
New Zealand from Hayward. The NZJC and the Chronicle both
asked the University to revoke Hayward's master's degree. The
working party will consider whether this request is legally
possible. The University, through its chancellor, Dame Phyllis
Guthardt and vice-chancellor Daryl Le Grew have expressed regret
at the level of distress the thesis has had on the Jewish
community and will work closely with the Jewish community to
resolve the issue. Meanwhile the thesis remains in the
University's library together with Hayward's addendum.The New Zealand Jewish Chronicle, a monthly Zionist
federation newspaper.
Regan is the editor: <mregan@voyager.co.nz>

Then we had this:

Victoria
seminar staggers Hayward

By John Myers, Manawatu
Evening Standard,
2 June 2000

Massey University's Dr Joel Hayward is stunned by a Victoria
University seminar reviving his controversial student thesis on
the Jewish Holocaust, now under academic inquiry.
The Victoria-based Centre for Strategic Studies is planning a
seminar entitled `Denying -- Diminishing the Holocaust', on June
29.
It is promoting the seminar with a flyer questioning what Dr
Hayward's beliefs about the Holocaust are now, but hasn't invited
him or even advised him of the seminar. Organiser David Dickens
said Dr Hayward was welcome to attend but it probably wouldn't be
advisable.
Dr Hayward, clearly upset by events since his 1991/92 Canterbury
University masters thesis was made public under embargo late last
year, said he was reluctant to comment.
"How am I supposed to respond, with a Canterbury University
working party (chaired by retired judge Sir Ian Barker) still
working on my thesis?" he said. "I'm just trying to
handle the whole situation with some dignity."
Dr Hayward said he believed the Victoria seminar was
professionally inappropriate, given that the Canterbury academic
working party was still about two months from its conclusion.
"I'm fully supportive of Canterbury's action and I sincerely
hope the working party reaches a resolution that is satisfactory
to all concerned parties, including the Jewish community," he
said..
Dr Hayward is now senior lecturer in defence and strategic studies
at Massey University.
The flyer promoting the seminar also asks what the controversy
means for academic freedom, standards of academic supervision and
whether Canterbury University's inquiry into these issues -- yet
to conclude -- goes far enough.
Dr Hayward said it was remarkable that an academic competitor
would hold such a seminar whilst an academic inquiry was still
running.
"It's a remarkably inappropriate topic for a Centre of
Strategic Studies that has a focus on defence issues and regional
security," he said. "One has to wonder if there is
personal or professional competition or rivalries involved. I
think one should be questioning Dr Dickens' motives on this."
Dr Dickens said he believed the subject did relate to defence and
strategy. "It is not designed to embarrass Joel," he
said. "Joel just wants it to go away."
Dr Hayward's thesis has been subject of a range of claims,
including denial and understatement of the Holocaust, since it was
released by Canterbury University under embargo. The subject is
described as a historiography of Holocaust revisionism.

By then the story had been propagated
around the world. We even had en echo in the Jewish monthly L'Arche
in Paris. (July-Aug. 2000): "L'étrange Joel Hayward" by
Henri Pasternak. The usual bullshit.

When the level of pressures reached a climax, Mr Hayward thought his
best interest would be served by a proper and formal act of
recantation. He choose to write a letter to the New Zealand
Jewish Chronicle (NZJC). He withdrew the main conclusions of his
thesis and said: "I stuffed up. The conclusions are
wrong". In the same letter he added that "without doubt,
around six million Jews perished during World War II. They were
murdered by Nazis and their allies. The perpetrators used a range of
methods, including gas chambers, shooting, physical exhaustion and
starvation, to carry out this monstrous crime."
On April 30, 2000, he sent an e-mail to Nizkor, asking the
webmanager, the gasoline station manager Mc Vay, to publish it:

I am therefore wondering whether you will
post the following letter on the Nizkor page "assigned"
to my name. This may help to present a fair picture.
Thank you. Sincerely,
Dr Joel Hayward
Palmerston North New Zealand

I would like to correct some of the
statements that Mr David Irving has made on his web site.
First, I have not "recanted" about the Holocaust because
of pressure from Jewish groups or individuals. I have instead
changed my mind about the conclusions I reached as a young MA
student in the very early 1990s.
I'm baffled by the insistence of some people that I "must
not" change my mind about the Holocaust debate. This attitude
is unscholarly. Why can I not change my mind? Must my ideas be
stuck in a 1991 rut?
I am obliged as a scholar to remain open to new evidence, to
reflect on old evidence, to test arguments, and to abandon those
that -- to me -- don't stack up. I have done this, and now know
from reflection and further reading that my old MA thesis contains
errors of fact and interpretation. I also know that those errors
have caused pain to some people in the New Zealand Jewish
community, especially to Holocaust survivors. So I have done what
I sincerely believe is the right thing: admitted my mistakes and
said I'm sorry.
My change of mind is genuine, and absolutely not the product of
coercion by Jewish groups or individuals or anyone else (even
though it's true I have experienced some resistance over the
years). I have simply come to realise that I made mistakes and now
want, on my own initiative, to say sorry so that my mistakes don't
continue to cause distress.
The responsibility to do so wouldn't normally accompany
recognition of errors in an unpublished masters thesis, but I am
well aware that my old work dealt with an unusually sensitive and
contentious topic.
I would also like to clarify one other issue: In a letter to a
Wehrmacht military history discussion group (which now appears on
Mr Irving's web site) I once offered support for the quality of Mr
Irving's MILITARY history scholarship, even though I
simultaneously stated that I did not agree with his political and
racial views.
My research in German primary MILITARY documents (conducted in
several European archives) does indeed show me that Mr Irving did
not falsify those sources or employ them according to an improper
methodology. I have not seen any examples from the diaries of Jodl,
Milch, Richthofen, etc, where he falsified evidence.
But I have now seen enough evidence from the trial transcripts to
believe that Mr Irving has a problem with Jews and consequently
employed improper methodology when dealing with certain documents
relating to aspects of the Holocaust. I did not know this until
the intense scrutiny of his books during the recent trial made it
manifest.
was also offended by some of his statements and actions, and
consider the trial to be extremely informative. I learned many new
things about Mr Irving.
I still consider much of Mr Irving's work on Wehrmacht operational
history to be strong and useful (as even the judge observed), and
he deserves credit for books like Trail of the Fox. But I accept
the judge's verdict that Mr Irving's obvious difficulty with
Jewish issues distorted the way he sees and presents the
Holocaust.

The same letter was posted by Holocaust
moghul Harry Mazal on his Holocaust History Project website, dated
15 May 2000.
While recanting, the recanter denies he is recanting. That is a
classical joke. Of course, Mr Hayward may change his opinion. Nobody
would dispute his right to do so. What leaves the reader uneasy is
the total absence of any sort of argument on which Mr Hayward would
ground himself to explain why he changed his mind. "..remain
open to new evidence, to reflect on old evidence, to test arguments,
and to abandon those that -- to me -- don't stack up. I have done
this..." We know nothing of what Mr Hayward did. While giving
him the benefit of the doubt, we see clearly that he is kneeling in
front of the Jewish doctors of the Faith. Besides intellectual
clarity, what is absolutely lacking here is a man's courage. But for
this we are no judges.

The recantation was to swim upstream, as is shown in this extract of
a local newspaper:

"Here in New Zealand, however, a
***five-year embargo*** placed on the thesis with the support of
Hayward's supervisor, Dr Vincent Orange, meant it did not reach
the public domain until late last year. No explanation for the
embargo has been given. Last December, Dr Hayward asked the
university to pull the thesis from its libraries. The
university refused, but allowed him to write an addendum
in which he casts doubt on several of his key conclusions and the
strength of his own scholarship." (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Online/00/05/Christchurch230500.html)

Note:
We have a rather well-informed article in The Press, a
newspaper of Christchurch (NZ) with some biographical datas,
including Haywards supposed part Jewish heritage, and reactions from
the NZ scholars. See "Making
History" by Sean Scanlon.
Here is the famous "addendum"
:

ADDENDUM
Joel Hayward

"The Fate of the Jews in German Hands: An
historical Enquiry into the Development and Significance of
Holocaust Revisionism"

In January 1993 I submitted to the University
of Canterbury the attached thesis for examination. I gained my M.A.,
with First Class Honours in History, and subsequently completed my
Ph.D., also at Canterbury. I am now a Senior Lecturer in Defence and
Strategic Studies at Massey University in Palmerston North, where I
teach military history, strategy and operational art.
Looking back on my M.A. thesis with the benefits of hindsight, and
eight years of subsequent research, I can now see that it contains
several errors of fact and interpretation. Given that the thesis
deals with a controversial and highly sensitive topic, and could
potenttially cause pain to the Jewish Community, I would like
briefly to clarify several important points.
First, I remain convinced that any individual, regardless of
ethnicity, nationality and political persuasion, should be able to
investigate any aspect of the past, and to form and express
conclusions based upon his or her own understanding of the evidence,
withoiut fear of punishment or ridicule for deviating from accepted
wisdom. To deny an individual this right is out of keeping with the
spirit of our age.
Having said this, I can now see that I failed in my MA thesis to
place adequate analytical weight on the motivation of numerous
authors ont he Holocaust, even though some were obviously writing
with a view to attacking Jews and rehabilitating Nazis. Although I
don't believe that a writer's reason for writing, by itself,
disqualified his or her research from consideration, I should have
demonstrated far more clearly the antisemitic nature of much of the
revisionist literature. Extensive reading during the last eight
years, coupled with the extremely negative experiences I have had
with certain revisionists, strengthens my belief that they care less
about recreating the past in an honest, even-handed and
methodoligically sound way that they do about spreading antisemitic
and neo-Nazi conspiracies.
Second, subsequently published research by those far more skilled in
physics and chemistry than I am convince me that my original
assessment of the Leuchter Report of 1988 (dealing with the extant
remains of buildings in Auchwitz) was excessively complimentary. The
report contains serious errors of fact and judgement, several of
them significant enough to rob the report of its evidential value.
Third, I have spent much time studying the reports of the
Einsatzgruppen, which I obtained on microfilm from the National
Archives in Washington a year or so after completing my MA, and
miscellaneous other German documents relating to the Holocaust,
which I found in the German Federal Archives in Koblenz and the
German Military Archives in Freidburg. I am now convinced that the
scale of Einsatzgruppen murders was greater than I had previously
thought, and that many regular Army officers -- including Erich von
Manstein and other illustrious generals -- knew murders were taking
place. Some even provided assistance.
Fourth, having reflected more on the nature and evidential value of
oral testimony, I now consider my criticism of certain sources too
harsh. It is true that many statements about homicidal gassings
based on the recollections of eyewitnesses contain incorrect dates,
embellishments or inaccurate estimates of size and quattity, but
this alone is not reason enough to disregard the sources or consider
them entirely unreliable as evidence. Just because someone got the
dimensions of a gas chamber wrong, or the number of people herded
into it, does not mean that the gassing did not take place.
I recently tested myself in various rooms in my own house, guessing
how big each room was and then measuring them with a tape measure. I
estimated my living room to be almost half as big again as it
actually was -- and this was done in a relaxed fashion, with no fear
for my life.
Finally, I regret writing on page 17 that "hundreds of
thousands of Jews (or even more) unnecessarily lost their lives
during the Second World War. Pogroms, random atrocities and the
Einsatzgruppen actions claimed the lives of tens of thousands.
Routine brutality claimed the lives of thousands more." These
sentences may leave readers with the impression that the Holoccaust
"only" caused a few hundred thousands death and was no
worse -- and may have been "better" (if such a word can be
used for these horrific events) -- than, say, the Turkish massacre
of Armenians during the Great War or the Hutu massacre of Tutsi
during the mid-1990s.
That statement was careless and inconsistent with other passages of
the thesis, which indicate that the Einsatzgruppen alone
systematically murdered many hundreds of thousands. Moreover,
extensive reading in subsequent years convinces me that, without
doubt, millions of Jews perished during World War II, murdered by
Nazis and their allies. The perpetrators used a range of methods,
including gassing, shooting, physical exhaustion, and stravation, to
carry out this monstrous crime.
My thesis represents an honest attempt on my part to make sense of
events I wanted to understand better. Yet I now regret working on
such a complex topic without sufficient knowledge and preparation,
and hope this brief addendum will prevent my work causing distress
to the Jewish community here in New Zealand and elsewhere or being
misused by individuals or groups with malevolent motives.

More than three years, later, this addendum
is still available at the same address.
Our conclusion: As much as Mr Joel Hayward is entitled, in year
2000, to change his opinions and disavow his 1993 work, the public,
for whom the thesis has been written and passed (giving Mr Hayward a
title), has a right to know its content. The university logically
refused to withdraw it from its shelves, meaning it now belongs to
the public domain. By rejecting to nothingness his own work, Mr
Hayward has made an orphan of it. This work belongs to nobody
anymore.. We adopt it as surrogate parents in order to reintroduce
it into a commonwealth of reasonable and disputables ideas.
We will follow our vocation and display the thesis on Internet,
acknowledging both that it is the work of Mr Hayward and that he now
disowns it.

The Fate of Jews in
German Hands:
An Historical Enquiry into the Development and Significance of
Holocaust Revisionism

you have reproduced an
article written by me on the acquisition of Holocaust-denial
materials by libraries. You may not know it, but that article was
published in Public & Access Services Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1
(1995): 5-40, and is copyrighted by myself and The Haworth Press
<http://www.haworthpressinc.com/>.
Permission for it to appear on the Nizkor Project server, and ONLY
the Nizkor Project server, was granted by me. I have not consented
for it to appear on your web site.

By hosting this page, you are
infringing upon my copyright. Thus, I am instructing you to remove
the file from your server within 5 days. Please note that I am not
concerned with the rest of your site and am in no way trying to
censor your expression; I only want my own copyrighted material to
be removed. You may feel free to replace the file with a link to
Nizkor's authorized version:

John A. Drobnicki
Associate Professor & Head of Reference Services York College,
The City University of New York http://www.york.cuny.edu/~drobnick/
"I speak for no one but myself."

TWO hours later:

From: <zimm@ccmail.nevada.edu>

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001
9:49 PM

Subject: Copyright Violation

I have recently learned that
VHO, like aaargh before it, is violating copyright material. You may
be aware that aaargh was kicked off of its site for these
violations. If VHO does not remove the below cited material, I will
file the following complaint with Rietta.

Please be advised that I am
the author of this essay and never gave permission to have it
reproduced. Therefore, my copyrights have been violated. I am a
member of the California bar and unless this material is withdrawn I
will file a lawsuit against Rietta. You should also be aware that
aaargh was kicked off by its prior host for violating the copyrights
of a number of authors, including myself. Other vilations are as
follows.

All of these authors will be
filing a class action lawsuit unless the situation is remedied
immediately.

Sincerely Yours

John C. Zimmerman

AAARGH REPLIES

First of all, M. Zimmerman is
a liar. He is inventing "that aaargh was kicked off of its site
for these violation". This is pure nonsense. A company bought a
company and the whole domain, of which aaargh was a part has been
wiped out by the new owners. There was no explanation, no warning,
no demand. We did not bother to ask for reasons. Pure and simple
censorship.

Secondly, we do not believe in
the existence of "intellectual property". We believe that
educated people have to share their views and ideas with the rest of
mankind, as ideas are a common property of the human race.
"Intellectual property" is a legal concept, which, beyond
its intrinsic absurdity, has its role in economy. It is recognized
by courts and we know it. But consider how 30 million people have
joyfully trampled the so-called intellectual property of musicians
in appropriating music with Napster.

Thirdly, we have
systematically introduced, on our website, views which are opposed,
or highly critical of the views we support. We have conceived this
website, more than 4 years ago, as an arena for a very important
intellectual debate on several historical and political questions.
We believe in the virtue of examination, discussion and comparison.
We are rationalists and we believe that we may find common grounds
with those whom we perceive and who perceive us as intellectual
enemies. This is all the more necessary because we deal with events
replete with human sufferings, violent deaths, and all sorts of
horrors. Our adversaries are totally unable to follow us in the
field of open discussion.

Four, we do not extract any
material benefit from this activity as we sell nothing. Displaying a
text from one of our adversaries costs us some energy and a small
amount of money. There is no way to retrieve this energy and this
money which are given away free to readers and people interested in
trying to make up their mind about difficult subjects.

Five, we respect authorship
and "intellectual property" by always attributing the
responsability of texts to authors. We name them, and advise our
readers to buy, whenever possible, the texts we display, from
publishers and bookshops. We just received M. Zimmerman book and in
our "April actualities" we'll advise readers to buy it.
But this could escape Mr. Zimmerman who unfortunately cannot read
French or German.

Six, there is here an obvious
conspiracy. No chance that these messages could be sent
independently. It seems Mr Zimmerman wants to build a case and is
trying to get support in consorting with colleagues at Nizkor or
similar sites, which are dedicated to the struggle against
revisionists. These people made a habit, for this purpose, to
distort revisionist views which they do not allow on their site. Mr.
Zimmerman himself is grossly distorting revisionist views at almost
every page of his writings. Our readers will appreciate this
absolute lack of intellectuel honesty.

We are requested by Zimmerman
and Cy to censor their own writing. We'll gladly comply. We have not
found much, in Mr Zimmerman's writings, to be be proud of, and we
understand that he wishes to restrain the number of his readers.

Seven, to limit ourselves to
the case of Mr. Zimmerman, a Las Vegas lawyer, an amateurish
historian, a linguistic invalid, who pretends to be the first (!!!)
to refute revisionist arguments (he says in his jargon
"denier" although we deny nothing, we maintain views
different from his), we thought that we could spend some time and
energy in entering a discussion with him and elaborating a critique
of his writings to which our reader would take part in being able to
visualize his contribution and our response to it.

Obviously, this perpective
makes Mr. Zimmerman fret a lot. His attitude smacks very much of
intellectual cowardice. It is his right to make a fool of himself in
showing how frightened he is by the very debate he is conducting in
his book for over 400 p.! We are not part of that bigotry.

> I intend to send this if you do not remove my MA. Please help
me avoid
this.
> Sincerely,
> Joel Hayward
> ------------------------------
>
> Dear Rietta
>
> It has come to my attention that Rietta is the ISP for the
website
> which has reproduced the following:> http://aaargh.vho.org/engl/hay/hayindex.html
> Please be advised that I am the author of this 1993 MA thesis
and
> never gave permission to have it reproduced and placed on the
> internet. Therefore, my copyrights have been violated. You
should
> also be aware that aaargh was kicked off its prior website by
its
> host for violating the copyrights of a number of authors,
including
> myself.
> I will file a copyright infringement lawsuit unless immediate
action
> is taken against this website.
> Sincerely
> Joel Hayward
> ----------------------------------------
> Dr Joel Hayward,
> Senior Lecturer in
> Defence and Strategic Studies,
> School of History, Philosophy and Politics,
> Massey University,
> Private Bag 11-222,
> Palmerston North,
> New Zealand
>
> Tel.: NZ 06 350 4234
> Fax: NZ 06 350 5662
> Email: J..S.Hayward@massey.ac.nz
> ----------------------------------------
>

It is obvious that poor
Hayward has been coaxed into writing this letter by no one else than
Zimmerman. Where else could he find the stupid and false allegation
saying that aaargh "was kicked off its prior website by its
host for violating the copyrights of a number of authors, including
myself" .This is purely and simply false. aaargh was kicked off
as a small part of a wider domain, <abbc.com>, the content of
which did not please the new owners of the IAP company. Zimmerman
wrote on March 19: "aaargh was kicked off by its prior host for
violating the copyrights of a number of authors, including myself.
" Hayward excised the word "prior". That is the whole
of his freedom.

Because of his recantation,
Hayward is now a slave to these people. His thesis had been
displayed since September 2000 and he did not mumble a word about
it. When the nizkorites come into play, he is treated by them as
horse manure and sheepishly copies what he is being told to mail us.
It will never stop.

There is a strange
contradiction here: On one hand, Hayward dimisses his thesis,
rejects it into obscurity, but at the same time he is claiming
authorship and ownership. Poor guy!

Post Script..
We have the content of Joel Hayward home page on the Net, which
seems to have disappeared, as of Sept. 2000:

Joel Hayward
Z.D.a.F., B.A., M.A. (Hons), Ph.D. Research Associate of the United
States Air Force Historical Research Agency

Hello there. My name is Joel Hayward, and I am
a tenured academic (military historian and defence commentator) in
the School of History, Philosophy and Politics at Massey University,
which is a medium-sized university in Palmerston North, New Zealand.
I am the Programme Coordinator for Massey's Defence and Strategic
Studies programme. I am thus closely involved with the teaching and
administration of a Master of Philosophy degree in Defence and
Strategic Studies, which is a degree course taught jointly by my
university and the New Zealand Army's Military Studies Institute. I
have a particular interest in theoretical and conceptual aspects of
modern warfare, including airpower and joint doctrines and the
theoretical foundation of both Maneuver Warfare and the AirLand
battle. One of my current research focuses is German military
history, particularly that of the Third Reich. I have published
widely on the Wehrmacht's operations during the Second World War. I
am the author of a 400-page book, entitled Stopped at
Stalingrad: the Luftwaffe and Hitler's Defeat in the East 1942-1943 (Lawrence,
KS: University Press of Kansas, 1998. ISBN: 0-7006-0876-1) and a
number of academic articles that have appeared in The Journal of
Strategic Studies, Airpower Journal, Air Power History, The Journal
of Slavic Military Studies, New Zealand Army Journal, and other
periodicals. I am currently working on Adolf Hitler as Military
Commander, a scholarly study of Hitler's war leadership that
Macmillan Press (U.K.) has contracted me to write.. I also lecture
at the New Zealand Army's Officer Cadet School (OCS) and the Royal
New Zealand Air Force's Command and Staff College (RNZAF CSC).

We took out the thesis. And Zimmerman's
ridiculous article. His book revealed the depth of his intellectual
ineptness.. The poor guy had to pay people to read and translate
German documents for him ! Let's forget his case, lost in the Nevada
sands.

Unbeknownst to us, some people who had made
copies of our site, displayed the Hayward thesis on the Web, with
aaargh markings. These people seem to belong to some kind of
"White Power" movement, which is the opposite of our
political ideas. We did not interfere, as we believe in the free
circulation of ideas.

Then another enterprise recently created a
one-volume in-one-click version of Mr Hayward's thesis available
from another website.

We also learned that Hayward has left Massey
University to establish himself as a free lance writer. We do not
doubt he took that decison on account of pressures inside of Massey.
He just now publishes a book on Admiral Nelson, which we found
advertised that way:

Taking a highly original, thematic
approach to the study of Horatio Lord Nelson, this book analyzes
the admiral's unique war-fighting style. Doctrine, tactics, and
operational art are part of the analysis, as are Nelson's command
and leadership abilities and his attitudes and beliefs. But the
book's focus is on how all these elements combined to form the man
whose infectious ethos spread through his entire force. It shows
that Nelson's creative genius, excitable and intense personality,
dramatic visage, and fervor for all things martial not only
inspired courage and loyalty but so dazzled and enflamed the
hearts and minds of his men that he reached near cult status in
his lifetime.

As a professional military analyst who
has devoted his career to researching, writing, and teaching about
the tactics and operational art of warfare, the author draws on
his own training and experience to view the admiral's war fighting
from a vantage point not accessible to many of Nelson's leading
biographers. Joel Hayward breaks free from the constraints of
chronology to thematically explore in greater-than-usual depth and
coherence the key aspects of Nelson's fighting style and to answer
questions not previously raised about that style and its
supporting ideas, including to what degree Nelson's style can be
adopted by modern warriors. Nelson scholars and enthusiasts will
consider the book to be a fine companion to the more traditional
studies of the great admiral. The book will also appeal to
students of warfare in general, especially those who focus on the
Napoleonic period.

Joel Hayward was until recently a senior
lecturer in defense and strategic studies at Massey University in
New Zealand. Now a freelance defense analyst and author, he has
written several books on military subjects as well as poetry and
fiction.

On Hayward resignation from Massey, the
abuses he received and the nervous breakdown caused by the wild
campaign against him, see below, the first article published by
Philip Matthews, in the NZ Listener, 2-8 November 2002.

While the hooligans of the Jewish
organizations were working their telephones tryinhg to harass
Hayward and kill him if possible, Jewish members of the
Establishment were using other methods of harassment, such a the
fanatical Dov Bing:

July 2000

Pseudo-history
New Zealand's Holocaust denial problem

By Dov Bing

Holocaust Denial, which refers
to itself as Holocaust Revisionism, is not history at all. It is
one of the most notable forms of antisemitic propaganda to develop
in the post-war period.

Holocaust deniers like David
Irving, Frederick Toben, Roger (???) Faurisson and Mark
Weber have tried to give the movement academic respectability.
Universities have generally been very vigilant not to associate
their institutions with Holocaust deniers. Universities in
Australia, the United States and Europe are very much aware that
association with Holocaust deniers could be deadly for their
reputation.

Anti-racism protesters at the
University of Waikato

It must have come as a surprise
to many observers therefore that two cases of Holocaust denial
have recently been uncovered at New Zealand universities,
prompting protests on campus and attracting much media attention
around the world.

The Hayward thesis

In February 1993, Canterbury
University student Joel Hayward submitted a Master's thesis
entitled: 'An Historical Enquiry into the Development and
Significance of Holocaust Revisionism'. The thesis was accepted
for examination by the Chief Superviser, Associate Professor
Vincent Orange of Canterbury University's History Department. The
External Examiner was Professor John Jensen of Waikato
University's History Department. Mr Hayward received First Class
Honours for his Master's degree.

In the concluding chapter of his
thesis, Hayward wrote: "A careful and impartial investigation
of the available evidence pertaining to Nazi gas chambers reveals
that even these apparently fall into the category of atrocity
propaganda." His main argument is actually based on the
discredited Leuchter Report, commissioned by Canadian Holocaust
denier, Ernst Zundel, and written by an "engineer" later
shown to have no formal qualifications whatsoever. Hayward argued
that "Leuchter's unorthodox conclusions, which at first seem
incredible, do appear to be supported by ample evidence."

The other conclusion in the
Hayward thesis refers to the number of Jews murdered in the
Holocaust. On page 336 of the thesis, he writes: "The total
number of deaths is probably impossible to determine... the total
would undoubtedly be more than one million and far less than the
symbolic figure of six million." Elsewhere in the thesis, he
was not so generous. On page 17 he suggests the figure to be
"hundreds of thousands of Jews or even more".

After Hayward received his
degree, the issue then slumbered for many years because the thesis
remained embargoed in the Canterbury Library, at the author's
request, until it was recently made public.

The April 2000 edition of the New
Zealand Jewish Chronicle (NZJC) contained five items on the
Hayward thesis. The media took up the story both in New Zealand
and abroad. In a letter to the NZJC of April of this year, Dr
Hayward (now a Senior Lecturer in Defence and Strategic Studies at
Massey University) withdrew the main conclusions of his thesis and
says: "I stuffed up. The conclusions are wrong". In the
same letter he now states that "without doubt, around six
million Jews perished during World War II. They were murdered by
Nazis and their allies. The perpetrators used a range of methods,
including gas chambers, shooting, physical exhaustion and
starvation, to carry out this monstrous crime."

The New Zealand Jewish Council
while accepting Hayward's subsequent apology and withdrawal of his
main conclusions, wondered how a Holocaust Denial thesis could
have been accepted for examination and approved with a First Class
Honours at Canterbury. The President of the New Zealand Jewish
Council, David Zwartz, called upon the University to cancel the
Master's degree awarded to Hayward on the basis of his thesis.

The response of Canterbury
University was sensitive and swift. Its Chancellor Dame Phyllis
Guthardt announced that the University Council would immediately
set up an independent Committee of Enquiry. The Canterbury Vice
Chancellor, Professor Daryl LeGrew, issued a public statement on
20 April indicating that "the university is dismayed at the
level of upset to the Jewish community and regrets this
deeply" and stressing, "We wish to work with the Jewish
community to resolve these matters."

The Kupka doctorate

However, in the second prominent
Holocaust Denial case, the University involved has been much less
sensitive and forthcoming. The case is that of Hans Joachim Kupka,
who is writing his doctoral thesis at the University of Waikato on
the topic: 'The Use of German in New Zealand'. Mr Kupka makes it
clear that as part of the thesis he intends to analyse the
contribution of immigrants from Germany and Austria to New Zealand
society. Many of these immigrants are, of course, Jewish refugees
from Nazi Europe and/or Holocaust survivors. The topic would have
been unexceptional were it not for the fact of Kupka's neo-Nazi
activities.

Mr Kupka was one of the leading
lights of the German Neo-Nazi 'Republikeiner Partei' before he
emigrated to New Zealand in 1992. (This was known in the German
Department of the University of Waikato.) In the 1980s Kupka was
the regional party Chairman in lower Bavaria. In October 1987 he
became Deputy Chairman for the Bavarian section of the
Repuiblikeiner. Mr Kupka was also responsible for the 'Ordnungsdienst'
of the Party, that is, their bodyguards and bouncers.

When Kupka arrived in New
Zealand in 1992, he continued his neo-Nazi activities on the
internet via several discussion groups. About 3000 pages of his
correspondence published since 1996, mostly in German, have been
archived. [By whom, may we ask ? ]

Six experts in the field of
Holocaust history have classified Kupka's writings as antisemitic
Holocaust Denial. These experts were Professor Konrad Kwiet of
Sydney University; Emeritus Professor John Moses of the University
of Queensland; Ms Luise Freudenberg, a Research Scholar of the
University of Berlin; Professor Peter Longerich of the University
of London; Professor A. Sywottek of the Institute of Contemporary
History in Hamburg and Professor Marion de Ras of the University
of Waikato.

Professor Kwiet stated : 'Herr
Kupka presents himself - and is pleased with his role - as an
intellectual who does not hide his antisemitism, Holocaust Denial
and racism."

Ms Luise Freudenberg agreed:
"It is absolutely clear to me that he is a neo-Nazi, a rabid
antisemite and apparently denies that there was a Holocaust.
...Also, the tone and language he uses to write about Jews and
about the Holocaust is openly antisemitic. He uses stereotypes and
polemical expressions that seem to come straight from Goebbel's
speeches... [Is not the use of "Goebbels speech" a
stereotype in its own right ? ] The idea that a German Jewish
refugee who escaped by the skin of his teeth and whose whole
family was murdered should receive someone like Kupka in his home
is more than disgusting."

Waikato academic Norman Franke
and I raised the issue of Kupka's antisemitic and racist writings
on the internet with Professor Knuferman, Kupka's sponsor in the
University's German Department. Our request for a copy of Kupka's
doctoral proposal was turned down by Knuferman and by the
Chairperson of the Postgraduate Research Committee, despite the
fact that Franke was a member of the German Department. Once we
finally gained possession of the Kupka doctoral proposal via a
different channel, it became clear to us why there had been so
much secrecy. Kupka's doctoral proposal involved an analysis of
the contribution of German and Austrian immigrants to New Zealand
society which would involve Kupka in researching the contribution
made by Jewish refugees and Holocaust survivors to New Zealand.

In order to respond to concerns
about Kupka's antisemitism and racism put forward by myself and
Franke, an ad hoc committee was set up by the Dean, Professor
Peter Oettli. Oettli was himself not disinterested, having been
involved in approving Kupka's entry into the German Department
with inadequate academic qualifications, and approved that his
research project be written in German and not be externally
assessed, both exceptions to university policy. The Committee
consisted of Knuferman, Oettli, both native German speakers, and
Dr Ann McKim, who had no knowledge of that language. After
examining only 150 pages of Kupka's internet writings, Knuferman
and Oettli decided that the Kupka internet writings "could in
no way be interpreted as being remotely rightwing."

Franke and I also wrote a 9-page
letter to the University's Ethics Committee, alerting the
University to the 'culturally unsafe' and academically problematic
nature of the Kupka doctoral outline. We pointed out that no
serious study about 'The Use of German in New Zealand' could be
undertaken without extensive reference to the many Jewish refugees
and Holocaust survivors from Nazi Europe; that such a study could
hardly be undertaken without the co-operation of these refugees
and their families; and that to allow this doctoral study to be
undertaken without reference to the contribution of the Jewish
immigrants, would make the study effectively 'Judenrein'. However,
the convenors of the various University Committees refused to
receive and table our correspondence. A request to the Faculty's
Human Ethics Committee to receive a delegation of Jewish academics
to discuss the issue was denied.

The University responded to
correspondence from myself and other Jewish academics by referring
part of the issue to the Human Rights Commission. The Legal
Adviser of the Office of the Race Relations Conciliator wrote that
it would be difficult to establish whether Kupka's internet
writings were likely to excite hostility against the Jewish
people. The University used the advice and argued that the Kupka
case had to do with free speech. This was of course a red
herring. The main issue which had been raised with the University
was that of the inherent academic problems and "cultural
safety" of the Kupka doctoral proposal.

When public pressure became too
strong and the New Zealand Jewish Council entered the debate,
asking for an independent public enquiry, Vice-Chancellor
Professor Gould responded by arguing that it was his opinion that
Kupka's writings did not constitute Holocaust Denial. The
implication was that the six international experts had all been
wrong in their assessments of Kupka's writings despite the fact
that Professor Gould admitted that he was not an expert on the
subject. The University -- albeit at this late stage -- has now
agreed to deal with the core issue of 'cultural safety' and
academic standards raised in our correspondence of 26 November.

In a recent newspaper article,
Kupka states that "no interviews with Holocaust survivors are
explicitly intended or necessary in the context of my
research." If this approach has been approved by Prof.
Knuferman and the Ethics Committee, it would mean that the
University of Waikato has now purged the thesis of its Jewish
content and made the matter worse.

It seems that Professor Gould
and his senior academic staff (Knuferman and Oettli in particular)
are unwilling to admit that they have made serious errors of
judgement. The academic staff of the German Departments of
Victoria, Massey and Canterbury Univerities have all written to
the University of Waikato advising the Vice Chancellor that Kupka
is not a suitable candidate to undertake doctoral research on the
topic 'The Use of German in New Zealand'. The University of
Waikato stands alone in its stubborn and steadfast support of the
neo-Nazi Kupka.

Professor Knuferman has now
resigned from the University and Kupka is apparently now keeping a
low profile in Australia.

The requests for an independent
inquiry by the New Zealand Jewish Council, the Waikato Jewish
Association, and the University's own Law Faculty should now be
honoured. Only an independent inquiry set up by the University
Council can restore Waikato's tarnished reputation.

Professor Dov Bing teaches in the
Department of Political Science and Public Policy at the
University of Waikato.

One can admire the mafiosi methods of the
good Dov Bing. Obviously Kupka is an adventurer and most probably a
quack and a pseudo-medical crook. His biography, established by a
group of German private cops, if true, is telling.
<http://www.idgr.de/lexikon/bio/k/kupka-hj/kupka.html>

But one things is certain: the Zionist
lobby took this opportunity to curb the university and to force
Kupka to abject apologies, before he escaped and vanished.

See "Gould apology over New Zealand
dispute", Jewish Chronicle, 18.10.02 et "Holocaust
uproar student apologises", New Zealand Herald, 31.10.02
Those who are interested in the most fastidious details of that
story could look at the Renwick Report:

In the meantime, a campaign developped
about yet another thesis written by a friend of Mr Hayward, on the
legal value of the Nuremberg Trials. This thesis was submitted in
Canterbury in 1994 by Mr Daniel Eaton, a colleague of Mr Hayward.
The offensive was led by none else than the big Goybasher, Dov Bing
who teaches at Waikato.. The press reported these news attempts at
censorship:

Canterbury
University is under fire after claims that a second thesis by
one of its students is being used by the Holocaust denial
movement. The thesis, by Steven Eaton, was supervised by Dr
Vincent Orange who supervised Joel Hayward's controversial thesis
questioning key aspects of the Holocaust. Dr Hayward's thesis
sparked an international outcry and prompted the university to
conduct an investigation into whether he should have been awarded
a first-class masters degree.
Mr Eaton's thesis questions the validity of the Nuremberg trials,
conducted by the Allies after World War Two, to punish German war
criminals. His thesis concludes that "the Allies evidenced
scant regard for the system known as international law", and
their disposal of major Nazi war criminals was an "arbitrary
exercise of power".
Mr Eaton, whose masters degree in history with first-class honours
was confirmed in May 1994, argues that in 1945 no law existed to
give the Allies the legal right to punish Nazis to the full
extent. In his thesis acknowledgements, Mr Eaton thanked Dr
Hayward for introducing him to the Nuremburg trials. "It is
to him that I owe my enthusiasm for the subject," he wrote.

An
international law expert at the University of Canterbury, Alex
Conte, said Mr Eaton's thesis was not the first to question the
Nuremberg trials. Mr Eaton's thesis has been seized upon by a
well-known Holocaust denier, the Rev Dr Robert Countess, who
posted details of it on his website.

Waikato
political science professor Dov Bing yesterday said it was one of
the base tenets of the Holocaust denial movement that the
Nuremberg trials had no standing in international law and that
German war criminals were falsely convicted. Canterbury University
could have prevented this latest controversy if it had identified
other theses involving Holocaust denial, Professor Bing said. The
university's Chancellor, Dame Phyllis Guthardt, said it would be a
huge undertaking to re-examine old theses. "There is no
suggestion of an investigation into the Eaton thesis. There is no
evidence of fraud or dishonesty, there had been no criticism of
it, and it had never been embargoed or withheld." She did not
believe a shadow had been cast on other history theses written in
the mid-1990s. Dr Orange did not return The Press' calls
and Mr Eaton could not be found.

The
whole pandemonium is explained in a preface to this thesis, written
by Robert Countess, a US academic and a revisionist. Have
a look at this preface: it says a lot.
This thesis is a cold examination of legal aspects of Nuremberg.
Suffice is to say that, today, no court would work the way Nuremberg
did. The scandal would be too obvious. But in those times,
everything was permitted to the winners.

In a way, the Hayward Affaire was re-launched by a New Zealander
journalist, foremost interested in his own fame and glory. Philip
Matthews writes in The Listener, "New Zealand's premier
Radio and Television magazine". In October 2002, he wrote the
following article, which, interestingly, deals with the (supposed)
"refusal" by the University to "dishonor"
Hyward's thesis. Matthews is obviously the spokesman of the
repressive lobby:

SPECIAL REPORT:
HOLOCAUST DENIAL AND THE NZ CONNECTION

The
continuing story of why a New Zealand university refuses to
dishonour a thesis denying the Nazi Holocaust

By Philip Matthews

For the serious historian, an
endorsement from David Irving is worse than no endorsement at all.
In April 2000, a high-profile libel case in the High Court in London
confirmed to the wider public something that historians had long
suspected: that, far from being an impartial chronicler of Hitler
and the Third Reich, Irving had deliberately twisted and
misrepresented historical records to support his dubious and harmful
arguments. Those aligned with Irving call themselves 'Holocaust
revisionists'. Others know them better as 'Holocaust deniers'.

'Holocaust deniers,' wrote the
trial's expert witness, Cambridge University historian Richard
Evans, in a report later that year, "are engaged in the
politically motivated distortion of the past through the tendentious
manipulation of evidence, in order to support their preconceived
view that there were no gas chambers, no programme of extermination,
no six million dead Jews."

What would those in the Jewish
community say to those who wonder why denying a historical event
should be such a big deal? "I would say, imagine what it's like
to be Jewish and on the receiving end," says David Zwartz,
president of the New Zealand Jewish Council. "In all the years
that I've been involved with this sort of thing, the people who have
spoken the loudest about the rights of freedom of speech have been
the least likely to be affected by any abuses. They're not in a
position of really understanding what that freedom of speech is
doing to people."

Irving brought the case himself,
suing Penguin over an otherwise obscure 1993 book, Denying the
Holocaust, by American scholar Deborah Lipstadt. It proved to be his
downfall. His requirement to pay Penguin's costs has bankrupted him.
His Mayfair flat (estimated to be worth Ł750,000) was seized in May
by "the enemy".

In late September, the Listener
found him in Key West, Florida. It was late afternoon and he had
just finished a game of tennis. He was considering a return to the
UK - the often-bitten, never-shy Irving is threatening to take on
Richard Evans over his account of the trial, published in the US as Lying
About Hitler and in the UK as Telling Lies About Hitler.

Irving's conviction that he is in
the right has only increased -- just as it does for many who believe
themselves to be persecuted. And a leading piece of ammunition is a
1993 MA thesis awarded first-class honours by the History Department
of Canterbury University. It is titled The Fate of the Jews in
German Hands and it is by Joel Stuart Hayward. It builds towards
the startling conclusion that "the weight of evidence supports
the view that the Nazis did not systematically exterminate Jews in
gas chambers". It cites Irving's notion that the Holocaust is
"the biggest propaganda offensive that the human race has ever
known". It repeats the deniers' fiction that 95 percent of
'orthodox' Holocaust historians are Jewish, and therefore have an
agenda.

"Hayward wrote a very good
thesis on revisionism," Irving says with confidence. "It
was very fair and objective. He got the story virtually correct and
I think that it still holds. In about 10 years, people will look
back and say that he got the story as correct as anybody could, on
the basis of the available evidence."

The Listener
reached Hayward at his home in Palmerston North. Initially, he
seemed rather less keen than Irving to hear from the media, although
he did then talk for more than an hour off the record and also
agreed to answer questions by email, supplying more than 3000 words
of answers in one night.

Did he get the story
"virtually correct", as Irving says? "I was not
correct," he replies. "I made errors of fact and judgment.
I still regret those and have apologised for them. I wish I could
turn the clock back. I also absolutely hate the fact that these
people wish to use my academic credibility to bolster their work,
which commonly has anti-Semitic objectives. I detest anti-Semitism
and other forms of racism."

Irving: "Hayward came under
very heavy attack from vested interests who have big financial
interests involved." Does he think that Hayward only recanted
under pressure and still believes in his conclusions in private?
"I don't know what his private views are. All I know is what he
wrote in his master's thesis. And I'm familiar with the books that
he's written and his general reputation as a historian. And the fact
that he's upset people with the money to throw around to cut him
down to size just confirms to me that he's probably right."

German historian Christian Leitz,
of Auckland University's History Department, believes that the
academic credibility that Canterbury bestowed in Hayward was "a
heaven-sent opportunity" for the likes of Irving. The deniers
were not slow in exploiting it. Although Irving no longer hosts the
thesis on his own website, he offers instructions on how to find it
(anyone with basic Internet skills can find it in a minute).
It is also hosted by other 'revisionist' sites and is still
circulated by such Holocaust deniers as Adelaide-based Fredrick
Toben and Robert Countess, in Alabama.

"We're powerless to do
anything about it," Zwartz says. "Even if it is
discredited, it's in circulation and probably will be for all
time."

"Hayward has to confront that
risk," Leitz says. "It is, after all, the only academic
thesis that really deals with Holocaust denial in a rather dubious
way that has been passed by an institution. You could argue that
part of it is a summary of different crackpots around the world, but
you can see how he gets drawn into it."

It's not as though Hayward wasn't
warned. In January 1992, Lipstadt wrote to Hayward, who was then
researching his thesis, that "I certainly hope you do not
fall" into the trap of taking the deniers seriously. Hayward
includes that comment in a footnote. Might that inclusion of that
embarrassing quote have had a subconscious motivation? Hayward's
attitude to the deniers over those years was marked by internal
conflict and strange inconsistencies.

The official version of the
Hayward story, as it broke in 2000, was that Hayward was, in 1992, a
28-year-old history student researching an MA under the supervision
of military historian Dr Vincent Orange. Hayward claims that, due to
his own inexperience, he fell for the arguments of Holocaust
deniers, including Irving, but after he completed the thesis he had
no further interest in them. He went on to write a PhD on the Nazi
siege of Stalingrad, published as a book called Stopped at
Stalingrad, and took up a position teaching at Massey
University.. He was young, he "stuffed up", he regrets it.

Other puzzling aspects of the
Hayward story were explained as mere youthful eccentricities. Such
as the fact that he added the Hebrew 'Joel' to his name by deed poll
and, depending on who you talk to, claimed either Jewish parentage
or more remote Jewish ancestry. And the fact that he formed a
university group called Opposition to Anti-Semitism (OAS) and then
fell out with it. And the fact that, after completing his thesis, he
placed a five-year embargo on it -- a decision that has still gone
unexplained by both Hayward and Orange.

Canterbury was also warned about
the leanings of Hayward's thesis. A Jewish member of the OAS wrote
to university authorities in 1992 with hard evidence of the
attitudes that he was forming. The warning went unheeded. A
transcript of an OAS meeting in 1992 reveals that Hayward recites
nearly every tenet in the denier's book before the other,
incredulous OAS members: there were no gas chambers, the Holocaust
is a propaganda trick, and so on. He adds that his net project, his
doctorate, will be the authorized biography of David Irving (both
Irving and Hayward maintain to this day that they have never met or
even spoken to each other). More alarmingly still, Hayward claims
that he has also convinced Orange that there were no gas chambers at
Auschwitz and that Orange was so excited by the breakthrough that he
proposed a public lecture based on Hayward's research. Was this
Hayward's delusion? Possibly, but it's a fact that Orange awarded
the thesis first-class honours and still stands by the high mark.

An article by Waikato University
professor Dov Bing in the New Zealand Jewish Chronicle in
early 2000 broke the news about this unbelievable thesis. [See
below for a more recent article by Mr Dov Bing, a Zionist, i.e. an
accomplice of the war criminals roving freely in Palestine.]

Hayward announced that he had
attached an addendum,
pointing out is mistakes and apologizing for them. Canterbury set up
a working party that found fault with the system of supervision,
flaws in the thesis and ethical issues in the way in which Hayward
"undertook to provide copies of his thesis to at least two
informants". The working party added that the thesis did not
deserve the high mark that it received in fact, it should have been
revised and resubmitted. But the university could not take the
crucial final step and strip Hayward of the degree because there was
no evidence of "dishonesty" and nor can the case be
re-opened, the university says, unless there is new, credible
evidence.

In other words, the working party
found that Hayward did his best, but simply read the wrong books and
talked to the wrong people. It was an honest mistake. End of story.
Hayward still holds to this. "Without trying to deny my own
responsibility for some of the problems, I do believe that I was
somewhat let down by the overall system at Canterbury," he
writes. "The working party concluded that I was not at fault as
a student, but that my university and department didn't watch out
for me adequately The topic was too contentious for an inexperienced
master's student."

However, in the two years since
the working party met, more information has emerged about Hayward
that makes that naivety look less tenable.

Consider Hayward's position on
Irving. To the media in 2000, Hayward said that he had always rated
Irving highly as a military historian, but has been shocked to
learn, as a result of the trial, of his anti-Semitic and racist
prejudices (infamously, there was the rhyme that Irving taught his
young daughter to recite: "I am a Baby Aryan/Not Jewish or
Sectarian? I have no plans to marry an/ Ape or Rastafarian").

Hayward's public statements seem
to support this: in the 1993 thesis, Hayward takes Irving seriously
and finds no anti-Semitic attitudes. In a letter posted to a WWII
online discussion group in 1998, he wrote that he couldn't find any
serious flaws in Irving's methodology nor any examples of the
"deliberate falsification of evidence", therefore
dismissing books such as Lipstadt's as "weak and unpersuasive,
reflecting the author's own biases". But here, unlike the
thesis, Hayward starts to see doubts about Irving's racial
attitudes, and the person whose biography he had longed to write is
now "an unpalatable person".

He adds, however, that he would be
happy to host Irving at Massey, if he lectured on Nazi war
leadership, rather than the Holocaust or race policy. "Only
because he is no specialist in them, not because of my personal
feelings."

The Canterbury working party may
have been convinced by this intellectual progress, but was
apparently unaware that, in February 1991, Hayward published a piece
in the New Zealand Jewish Chronicle that completely
contradicted the thesis he was then researching. Hayward somehow
acquired knowledge that he did not have until a decade later: Irving
is a "Holocaust denier [who] openly admires the Nazi
regime". In an emotional torrent, Hayward writes that Irving is
the most "gifted" modern historian, yet he is also the one
who he "despises" the most. Any attempt he makes at
spreading his vile arguments must be opposed," he writes.
Hayward is identified as the secretary of OAS. He even provides the
illustration, which is his own drawing of "Irving at work"
-- at a desk with a picture of Hitler on the wall, a Nazi flag and a
Nazi uniform in the closet.

So, did Hayward write a piece for
the Jewish Chronicle, in 1991 that identified Irving as an
anti-Semite? "I don't know if I did or not," he replies..
"But I did once write many articles for the Jewish Chronicle,
so I may well have. Certainly, even as an undergraduate, I used to
think that he disliked Judaism, Zionism and organised Jewry."

Really? A central argument in
Hayward's thesis depends on the Holocaust deniers, including Irving,
being free of anti-Semitism and therefore seeming objective, as
Evans has noted. In 2000, Zwartz asked Evans to review Hayward's
thesis. Evans was then fresh off the Irving trial and his report was
damning, identifying biases, errors, superficialities: "He
accepts the Holocaust deniers' arguments without taking into account
the detailed criticisms that have been levelled at them; and he
presents them as politically neutral scholars despite the fact that
he has read, or consulted , work which proves them to be otherwise.
This can hardly be described as a balanced approach."

Like other observers of the
Hayward case, Evans was interested in the Jewish question. Besides,
Hayward sometimes presenting himself as Jewish, the Jewish
Chronicle identified the OAS as a "majority" Jewish
group, and Hayward did not identify himself as a gentile -- most
readers would have assumed that he was Jewish. Certainly, it was in
Hayward's interest to seem Jewish. "The belief that Hayward was
Jewish evidently played an important part in persuading [Orange] to
accept the topic that Hayward proposed," Evans wrote. The
anti-Irving vitriol may have been part of a disguise.

What of Hayward's claim that he
had no further interest in the Holocaust deniers after completing
the thesis? This also looks shaky. Hayward has said that he turned
down an offer to speak at Toben's 'revisionist' conference in
Adelaide in 1998, where his thesis was praised by Countess as
"a noteworthy and courageous study that shows the seriousness
of revisionist scholarship".

Irving claims that he invited
Hayward to speak at his conference in the US in 2000, and that
Hayward only turned him down because of the attention that his
thesis attracted that year. Hayward, however, writes, "I have
not been invited in recent years, and have no contact, even by
email, with even one single revisionist. None of them even has my
email address."

But further revelations about
Hayward and Orange have emerged from within the deniers' own camp.
Last year, Countess published an article about Hayward -- whom he
calls 'My friend Stuart" - in a far-right historical journal.
It was illustrated by a photo of Hayward firing a gun during a visit
to Countess's property in Alabama. Countess adds that he introduced
Hayward to two other prominent Holocaust deniers -- Mark Weber and
David Cole -- and that Hayward presented Countess with a photocopy
and CD of his thesis, Orange's examiner's report and another, more
recent Canterbury thesis, by a history student named Stephen Daniel Eaton..
This thesis, titled Judgment on Nuremberg, was a
reconsideration of the Nuremberg war trials (it is a plank of
Holocaust deniers that the confessions of Nazi war criminals at
Nuremberg are not reliable). That it was also supervised by Orange
was enough for Countess to say, with obvious admiration, that
Canterbury had nurtured a "favourable climate" for
Holocaust denial.

How does Hayward remember Eaton's
thesis? "I never read his thesis, do not know what it argued or
what grade it received," he writes. "I was never his
tutor, and I had no influence over his choice of topic or his
eventual conclusions." Yet, in his acknowledgements, Eaton put
it differently.. "It was Joel Hayward who first introduced me
to Nuremberg and it is to him that I owe my enthusiasm for the
subject," Eaton wrote. "I also owe him thanks for his
scrupulous proofreading and criticism of this text."

And how does Hayward remember that
afternoon with Countess? Well, he happened to be in Alabama and
Countess heard that he was around [Hayward does not explain how
Countess knew he was there] and asked if he would like to meet the
family of Jesse Owens. Hayward was thrilled at the opportunity.
Along the way, they fired guns at Countess's place. Hayward claims
never to have seen any photos, but he remembers vividly that
"it was in a backyard, in midwinter with me wearing a
multi-coloured ski jacket.

"I have fired many weapons
and, as a defence studies academic, I always take any opportunity
to learn about weaponry. What's wrong with that? I fired at a
block of wood, not a person. And it wasn't at any paramilitary or
far-right training camp. I'm surprised, though, that no one's
accused me of being at Waco."

While at Massey University,
Hayward taught modern German history. Lecture notes supplied to the Listener
by a former student show that, in 1999, Hayward was teaching
so-called 'orthodox' history and Holocaust denial as equally valid.
This is the "false equivalence" -- giving valid and
spurious arguments equal weight -- that Evans condemned in his
review of the thesis.

It is also understood that
Irving's book Hitler's War, which proposed the myth of Hitler
not ordering the Holocaust, was on the reading list, along with
Arthur Butz's notorious The
Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed
Extermination of European Jews (Evans: "The Nuremberg
trials were a frame-up in Butz's view, and the myth of the Holocaust
was propagated after the war by the Jews for their own
advantage"). When Dov Bing sought a copy of the reading list,
he says, Hayward claimed variously to have lost it, not have one in
his study at the time and that it was intellectual property.
"Why wouldn't a respectable academic want to supply a copy of
readings that was made available to 100 students each year?"
Bing asks.

Even Hayward's post-thesis
research has been seen by some to contain biases. In a review of Stopped
at Stalingrad in the Times Literary Supplement in October
23, 1998, Omer Bartov, professor of history at Brown University,
noted that "even today some historians remain under the spell
of the German rhetoric of the period": Bartov was amazed that
Hayward described both General Alfred Jodl, Hitler's subservient
operations chief, and General Kurt Zeitzler, the army's Nazi chief
of staff, as "honourable men", and accepted Field Marshall
Erich von Manstein's assertion "that he was merely 'a
professional soldier', while in fact he issued some of the most
notorious racist orders of the war as early as 1941".

Hayward knows this review well.
Two weeks after it appeared, he posted, on the same WWII online
forum where, only days before, he had posted his praise of Irving
and criticism of Lipstadt, an assessment of Bartov. "He comes
from the viewpoint that any discussion of Germans at war should
include strident condemnations of their Nazi atrocities, etc."
Hayward wrote. What is this 'viewpoint'? Perhaps, Bing has wondered,
Hayward means that Bartov is Jewish.

"I have never adored
Hitler, and have never owned a bust or wall photos or plaques of
him," Hayward writes, describing as "utter mischievous
rubbish" rumours that he had photos of Hitler in his office
at Massey near photos of himself in similar poses.

"I had a picture of me in
Nuremberg, taken in 1994, as I did of me in Colmar and Strasbourg
in France. I have traveled very widely, after all. The picture I
have displayed most often in my office over the years was actually
of me at Tel Arad in Israel. So, does this now prove I wish I were
Moshe Dayan (a great general by the way)?

"Let me be clear: Hitler
was a creep. He was a misanthropic, murderous tyrant who
manipulated his nation into war and despicable criminal barbarism.
He gets no praise from me whatsoever, even though, as a military
strategist, I can recognise that he made some innovative and
effective strategic decisions. I add that he also made some
hopeless amateurish blunders."

Hayward resigned from Massey
University in June [2002], without any fanfare. He has not gone on
to any other institution. He says that he is living on his savings,
developing his abilities as a writer of fiction and poetry (he
submitted one, with his answers, about Jesse Owens) and enjoyed
watching videos and Coronation Street and going for walks
along the Manawatu River with his wife and two daughters. Although
two years have passed since the attention of the media and the
working party, he left Massey "to recover my shattered
emotional health after suffering a nervous breakdown caused by acute
stress and depression about this dreadful saga". In a Press
story in 2000, he also alluded to a breakdown, and again to
Auckland's University's Leitz last year. The reference usually comes
with a sense of persecution."I received literally scores of
abusive letters and threats, including death threats," he
writes. "I must add that I received worse treatment, and had my
freedom and privacy violated to a worse degree, than if I had
committed an armed robbery.

"I also wanted to find a
new career, one that would free me artistically and creatively. I
no longer believe that all staff within New Zealand universities
care about freedom of enquiry and expression. Many teachers
encourage extreme political correctness and the conformity of
ideas and they discourage free thinking. But that's also typical
of wider Western society, isn't it? I'm a liberal democrat, so
freedom is important to me. Maybe that's why I feel so sad about
what I see as the decline of academic freedom in New Zealand. And
of course I'm talking generally, not about my own painful
circumstances."

For all the confusions and
obfuscation in Hayward's account, it seems that the person who is
really being protected by Canterbury's unwillingness to strip
Hayward of his master's degree is Orange. He joined Canterbury's
staff some 40 years ago and, now in his late sixties, will retire at
the end of this year. For other academics, the Hayward saga has been
a black mark in his career. It was Justice Gray at the Irving trial
who said, "No objective, fair-minded historian would have
serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at
Auschwitz." It was Orange who did just that. [The fact is
Orange is an established historian and Gray a little judge taking
counsel only of himself...]

"The onus is on the
supervisor to make sure that a young student, doing a contentious
topic, doesn't get pulled in a certain direction," Leitz says.
"In most institutions, this would have been the end of
somebody's career. "I still feel that this is a case where
everything that could go wrong did go wrong, in terms of choice of
topic, choice of supervision, the individuals involved, the choice
of external examiners."

After finding the thesis to be
"tendentious, biased and dishonest", and having "no
doubt" that it constituted Holocaust denial, Evans extended his
criticism to the supervision: "No competent examiner anywhere
would have passed it. More serious still, if anything, is the
scandalous incompetent level of supervision."

All through 2000 and 2001, Orange
repeatedly refused to comment about Hayward and maintained that
position with the Listener. However, he changed his mind on
the eve of publication and released a previously confidential letter
written to Canterbury's chancellor on April 20, 2001 ("Hitler's
birthday!" Orange notes). Here, Orange admits to letting
Hayward down as a supervisor. "I now know, as a result of the
most intense, protracted and (I am sorry to say) generally hostile
scrutiny that any half-MA thesis has ever received, that he made
some serious mistakes," he writes. "I also know that I
failed to offer him adequate supervision during most of 1992, while
I was on leave. And yet: how much of Joel's apprentice work has
withstood that intense, protracted generally hostile scrutiny!"

Elsewhere in the 14-page letter,
Orange refers, usually ominously, to "Mr Zwartz and his
associates", whom he sees as "not 'men of probity' ".
He describes Evans's report as hostile and often incorrect, which is
a point of view not shared by most experts, including Leitz --
"Evans has an impeccable reputation," Leitz says. [Wrong.
Evans is seen as an arrogant and ignorant mad dog by most scholars
in Europe. ] Orange adds that, unlike the working party, he sees
nothing improper in his friendship with Hayward. Ten years after the
thesis, they remain close.

The person officially designated
to speak for Canterbury is registrar Alan Hayward (who is not
related to Joel), "I myself wouldn't use the word
'embarrassment', " he says, in regards to the university's
image. Although the university did apologise in 2000, the working
party proposed that the university could make further amends by
sponsoring, for example, a Holocaust memorial lecture, "We
haven't actually gone down that path, " Hayward says, although
he believes that one new course reflects a heightened sensitivity.
"There is a summer course being offered on Jewish-Muslim
relations and the whole question of Israel and Palestine.."

Not quite the same thing. "We
thought that the university was not very serious about our
concerns," says Zwartz. Like Zwartz and others Evans believes
that the degree must be withdrawn -- only this would send a
clear signal. Zwartz hopes that the formal replacement for recently
departed vice-chancellor Daryl Le Grew -- due to be announced in the
new year -- may be finally in a position to make such a move.

There is a precedent. Evans cites
the case of Henri Roques, a protégé of French Holocaust denier
Robert Faurisson, who had his 'revisionist' doctorate revoked in
1986 by the French Ministry of Higher Education. Evans's report
concluded: "Allowing a work of Holocaust denial to appear with
the imprimatur of a university gives it scholarly credibility. In
the present case, this has also been exploited by anti-Semites and
political extremists seeking to argue for the validity of Holocaust
denial. If a degree is awarded to a candidate who is subsequently
found to have plagiarized his or her work, or who has systematically
violated the canons of scholarship which the degree is intended to
certify and endorse, then it is reasonable to ask the university in
question to withdraw recognition of the degree originally awarded.
This indeed happened in the case of Henri Roques. It should happen
in the case of Joel Hayward, too."

in
New Zealand's premier Radio and Television magazine, Listener,
2-8 November 2002, but actually printed on Friday, 25 October 2002.

--------------

Now we see why a warning appeared on
Irving's website in 2003:

READERS should be aware that the New
Zealand journalist Philip Matthews who may contact them about Dr
Hayward is working for the newspaper The Listener, and
writing on behalf of a special interest group which is trying to
destroy Dr Hayward's career.

We recorded some letters ritten in
response to the Listener article, "In denial,"
November 2, 2002

Denial of
denial

Joel Hayward replies:
GUILT by association is a nasty tactic. Nonetheless, I'll swat
that aside for a moment and address some of my 'obfuscation'
alleged in 'In Denial' (November 2), which, by the way, contains
nothing new, and certainly nothing not seen by the Working Party
two years ago. But first let me make one thing clear: Vincent
Orange (with whom I still have occasional email correspondence) is
a warm and kind man -- a true gentleman -- and an outstanding
military historian. He, too, has found the last two or three years
difficult, I believe that, like me, he did his best to be honest
and accurate all those years ago. He doesn't deserve this
vilification.
Now, to the main claims. It would have been fair journalism to
point out the following:
1. My meeting with Robert Countess took place nine or so years
ago, when I was in Alabama on a prestigious scholarship with the
US Air Force. Countess was then a minor figure in the Holocaust
controversy, and I knew almost nothing about him. He offered to
take me to meet the family of my athletics hero, Jesse Owens. I
jumped at the offer (who wouldn't?), and Countess kept his word.
My day at the Owens house is a wonderful memory. I even supplied
the Listener with photographs of me with the Owens family as
evidence.
2. I declined David Irving's request to testify for his defence at
his 2000 trial in London, and I also turned down a similar request
from a Canadian revisionist, Ernst Zündel, a few years earlier. I
want no part in the debate.
3. As a gesture of goodwill to the concerned Jewish community, I
gave my large and expensive collection of Third Reich books,
sources and microfilms (including rare first editions of obscure
German texts) to the Mazal Research Library in the US, a center
that counters anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.
4. I received one bad review for my book Stopped at Stalingrad.
The one that the Listener quoted from was the only bad review it
received. All others, and the book was widely reviewed
internationally, were glowing. The book is in its third printing
and is considered the standard work on the Stalingrad airlift. It
is used in many staff colleges and university defence studies
courses as a set text.
5. In the years since I wrote my controversial thesis I have had
around one million words published, yet not one sentence denies
the Holocaust. I have several new books out soon, none of them on
a remotely related topic. My favourite military commanders (my
professional 'heroes', if you like) are Lord Nelson and the Duke
of Wellington. They pre-dated the Nazis -- not one of whom
features in my list of favourites -- by one-and-a-half centuries,
and were 'good guys', not 'bad guys'.
I'm certainly not an extremist. I am an ordinary liberal and
democratic New Zealander. How I came to attract more publicity two
or three years ago than criminals and gang leaders is still beyond
my comprehension. I have received worse treatment, and had my
freedom and privacy violated to a worse degree, than my alleged
'crime' warrants. I did not rob a bank; I wrote a thesis. I regret
that I hurt people, and have apologised often on my own
initiative, but this character assassination has to stop. I have
to be able to move on in life without further smears. I am not a
'story'; I am an average Kiwi man with a loved and loving family.
We deserve the same privacy and freedom from hassles that every
other citizen gets.
Dr Joel Hayward,

Then a reader from Palmerston North, New
Zealand, apparently a student of Hayward:

IT IS with disgust that I read of the further smears and attacks
levelled at Dr Joel Hayward, who was a senior lecturer at Massey
University until he could no longer cope with the anguish he felt.
His truth-twisting opponents seem to want to portray him as
responsible for, or involved in, almost every controversy
regarding Jews in the country. They seem to hate him with
undisguised ferocity. This reflects badly on the New Zealand
Jewish Council.
I had the pleasure of being in Dr Hayward's stimulating,
informative classes and have known him for several years. He is
the best lecturer I have ever studied under. I can confirm his
popularity among students, many of whom share my disgust at his
treatment. They miss him at Massey and think the university
suffered a great loss when he resigned. Dr Hayward is a helpful,
honest and sensitive man. Even when the controversy over his
thesis erupted a few years ago, and students could see that it was
taking a toll on his health and nerves, he remained a dedicated
and inspiring lecturer. His books and articles are highly regarded
around the world.
Dr Hayward is certainly not a neo-Nazi, Holocaust denier,
anti-Semite or right-winger. He has always demonstrated tolerance
and cultural kindness in classes and in person. He deserves to be
left alone to rebuild his life and career.
Kelly Badman,

Then the comic.. This writer, Zimmerman, a
lawyer of Las Vegas, of all places, (see above) has repeatedly tried
to enlist Hayward in his self-appointed crusade against
revisionnists on Internet. He is also the author of one of the most
ridiculous anti-revisionist books.

I AM the author of a book debunking the claims of Holocaust
deniers and a member of The Holocaust History Project, an
organisation that fights Holocaust denial. I have read Dr
Hayward's Masters thesis as well as the report issued by
Canterbury University. I fully endorse the report's findings and
agree with Dr Richard Evans' critique of the supervision, or lack
thereof, that Hayward received. However, the article omitted two
key points that I brought to the attention of its author, Philip
Matthews, whom I contacted at the request of Dr Hayward. First,
much to the consternation of Holocaust deniers, Dr Hayward has
issued a public apology for his thesis. Second, Dr Hayward made a
valuable contribution to the Project of documents dealing with the
Nazi era. This material helps us to continue to fight against the
lies and distortions of deniers.
Dr Hayward also assisted me in obtaining key information for a
study I published refuting Pearl Harbour revisionism. He does not
even accept Pearl Harbour conspiracy theories, much less the more
mendacious claims of Holocaust deniers.
I have corresponded with Dr Hayward off an on over the past three
years and know that he has been trying to sever his ties with the
deniers, despite what the deniers themselves may be claiming. Like
the Mafia, Holocaust deniers never like to let go -- a lesson
that Dr Hayward has learnt the hard way.
A current prominent member of the Ku Klux Klan, as was a former
highly respected justice of the Supreme Court, the highest court
in the US. The Klan is a racist and terrorist organisation that
has plagued the US for over 100 years. Both of these individuals
regretted and apologised for their association and were able to
make valuable contributions to American democracy. Surely if a US
senator and Supreme Court justice can be allowed to live their
lives in peace after denouncing the Klan, everyone can grant Dr
Hayward the same consideration.
John C Zimmerman, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Philip Matthews replies:

NOWHERE in the story is it suggested that Joel Hayward is
"responsible for, or involved in, almost every controversy
regarding Jews in the country". This is paranoid and
persecutionist. I will leave it to the New Zealand Jewish Council
to confirm whether or not they hate Hayward "with undisguised
ferocity", but this comment seems to have the same thinking
behind it.
It is unfortunate that the detail that Hayward met Robert Countess
in Alabama in 1994 was omitted, but it doesn't change the fact
that Hayward was circulating his thesis (and another student's) to
Holocaust deniers within a period during which he has claimed to
have had no contact with them. Nor am I convinced that
"Countess was then a minor figure in the Holocaust
controversy and [Hayward] knew almost nothing about him",
given that Countess was acknowledged among the sources and experts
in Hayward's thesis -- which was completed, remember, in 1993.
It's worth adding that Countess was so inspired by the theses that
Hayward presented to him that he established a company -- Theses
& Dissertations Press -- with the express intention of
publishing both of them. That company' s website (tadp..org) says
that "neither thesis was published for various reasons of
logistics and constraints of time". However, the company has
gone on to become one of the leading Holocaust denial presses.
Hayward did not need to send the Listener photos of himself
with the Owens family -- that visit was never doubted in the
story. Regarding John Zimmerman's letter, it was clear that
Hayward has publicly apologised. Zimmerman also endorses Richard
Evans' thorough and incisive report on Hayward's thesis, although,
in correspondence with me, he went further than simply blaming the
supervisor, as he does above. "Evans was right on the money
about the thesis," he wrote. "Having read the thesis I
know it constitutes Holocaust denial."

Fredrick Töben comments:

WHEN the heat was on him, Dr Joel Hayward was quick to label me an
antisemite, etc. and his reference to his poor health tended to
neutralize my desire to fend off his attacks on my person. He even
rang me up after my release from the German prison and expressed
his concern for my wellbeing. I even stated publicly that Hayward
had the right to change his mind, this being a normal revisionist
characteristic. But I did demand of Hayward that morally he owes
the Revisionists a detailed justification as to what caused him to
change his mind, i.e. what new information was it that made him
change his mind. This material has not been made public.
For the sake of completeness, I would like to state the following,
something I have mentioned in my book: The pressure on
Revisionists is tremendous, and Joel Hayward , among other things,
did receive death-threats -- and it involved the Israeli embassy
in Auckland. He therefore had to make his recantation appear as
realistic as possible. Unfortunately my request that he detail the
reasons on which he based his change-of-mind remains unanswered.
But I can still empathise with him, that he loves his wife and
children above all else. During 2000, while we spent time together
in his office, every few minutes his wife would ring through to
enquire how he was. Perhaps she thought that I had evil intentions
upon her husband.
Professor Robert Faurisson made the pertinent comment about
pressure. If Revisionists have to endure a lot of stress and
pressure, think about the pressure, for example, the US president
has to endure from the Zionist lobby. I think we are all realistic
enough to know that this battle about getting the true story of
the 'Holocaust' out into the wider world is a life and death
struggle. It is not for the fainthearted. And a Revisionist who
still has a wife and young children is perhaps foolish to risk
all. I have been given a rather friendly reminder via our court
system not to doubt the 'Holocaust' and not to question the
details of the murder weapon. I am complying with that court order
to the best of my ability. The most important thing is to lose
one's fear of fear, but unfortunately we are moving closer and
closer to what prevailed in the eastern European countries and in
the former Soviet Union until the collapse: a general hush, a
shroud of modesty and serenity, befitting those who live
cautiously, pervaded socialist societies. Public offices were all
guarded, something we did not see in western countries until
recently.
So what is happening today is actually a transference of the fear
factor that operated in the former communist countries onto the
once vibrant democratic western world. Through their work,
Revisionists are at the forefront of sensing this negative
fear-driven development. Hayward himself clearly alludes to it in
the Matthew interview where he addresses the loss of academic
freedom.
Joel Hayward, like David Cole before him, has done his job, and we
must respect his silence with the proviso that he does not attack
Revisionists. For example, his comment about not attending the
Toronto Zündel trial as an expert witness can be regarded from
his view-point and also from the perspective as expressed by
Professor Faurisson. The critical point of it all is this:
Hayward's thesis still stands, as does Germar Rudolf's report.
Legal and social sanctions have been imposed to discourage others
from reading this material, but we all know that the
Internet is our weapon of mass instruction.
Individuals will make up their own minds, and dissent according to
their personal sense of urgency that surrounds the
"Holocaust'.
One final point, John C Zimmerman ( I always muse how many
prominent Jews have such good German names!) claims the Mafia does
not like to let go. I thought he was referring to the
anti-Revisionists who will simply not let Hayward go. Revisionists
have moved on, and some don't even look upon his work as
important. But I would rather deal with the Mafia than with
anti-Revisionists such as Zimmerman. Why? The Mafia has a code of
honour, something the anti-Revisionists lack.

This article triggered opposition, among
them two vehement letters by Australian Adelaide Institute members:

Adelaide Institute's New Zealand Associate,
K R Bolton, writes the following letter to the NZ Listener

29 October 2002
Dear Editor

That there is still outrage
about the Joel Hayward thesis several years on, Listener
November 2, 2002, indicates the intolerance of those who have a
vested interest in perpetuating war era propaganda. If the World
War I allegation that the Germans bayoneted Belgian babies served
the interests of Zionism and Israel we would no doubt also
continue to be bombarded with that myth.

Dr Hayward's thesis, which I
have read, amounts to a review and assessment of Holocaust
revisionist literature and its development. It weighs the merits
of revisionist literature, and on virtually every page finds
errors with it. However, what has the Holocaust propagandists
enraged is that Hayward also found some justification for the
revisionist questioning of the many strange allegations relative
to the Holocaust.

Where Dr Hayward errs is in his
retraction appended to the thesis, in which he states that he
subsequently found the Leuchter Report, the first forensic
examination of the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers, was erroneous.
The material he cites as repudiating Leuchter was known to him
prior to his writing the thesis, as shown in some of his previous
articles. Rather than being repudiated, Leuchter's findings have
been replicated, chemical analysis showing that the alleged gas
chambers at Auschwitz do not have sufficient traces of 'Prussian
Blue' residue from Zyklon gas.

The allegations concerning mass
gassings are as credible as the testimony and documents that
accused the Germans of the Katyn massacre. I would ask, what of
all the documents, testimony and confessions relating to the
gassings supposed to have taken place at the camps in Germany and
Austria, such as Dachau, which were finally conceded during the
1960s not to have taken place? Why are the same allegations
regarding Auschwitz and other work camps in Eastern Europe
considered any more credible?

Mr Zwartz of the Jewish Council
pontificates about tthe hurt done to Jews when such oddities are
questioned. What of the hurt done by this Blood Libel to the
Germans, increasingly to other Europeans and even the Vatican, and
of course to the Palestinians?

K R Bolton

Fredrick Töben also responds to the NZ Listener:

<editor@listener.co.nz> 30
October 2002
Right of Reply to Philip Matthew's 'In Denial'

Dear Editor

Permit me briefly to respond to
your staff member's five page article in the Listener,
November 2-8 November 2002.

2. It is a pity that Philip
Matthews did not even bother to ring me about this matter. The
tone in which he references our 'revisionist' conference indicates
his deep-set prejudice to open and free enquiry. Such a matter has
a lot to do with mental maturity.

3. Matthews fails to point out
that Justice Gray left an opening in his otherwise condemning
judgment: he had not read the Rudolf Report and David Irving had
failed to submit it. To date no-one has refuted the findings of
The Rudolf Report that support the Leuchter Report's findings.

4. Putting all the hot air aside
because talk is cheap, there is just one challenge that needs to
be taken up, and Dr Robert Faurisson throws it out to the world.
He invites anyone to show him the murder weapon, as is the
sensible thing to do in any murder enquiry:

Show me or draw me the
homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz!

To date this challenge has been
met by verbal abuse and legal restraints, as is being suggested by
Professor Dov Bing. Bing's authoritarian mindset is a shame to
academia, and Hayward is right in lamenting the demise of free
enquiry at New Zealand's universities.

Bing is a disgrace to the
world academic community (as is Professor Evans)
because as a Zionist he is someone who supports the
apartheid-racist state of Israel. That in itself is a shame for
which Bing should hang his head in shame.

5. Finally, a German historian,
Fritjof Meyer, has written a long article in a publication wherein
he claims that Auschwitz-Birkenau's, Krema II, was not a gas
chamber, but that the gassings occurred at two farmhouses outside
the perimeter of the concentration camp. Irving had expressed this
view at his trial.

Of course, Dr Faurisson would
vehemently disagree and claim that Irving is not a revisionist
because he wants to have it both ways. Faurisson says you cannot
say a woman is half pregnant, and so you cannot say "limited
gassings took place" when there is no evidence to prove this
claim that any gassings at all took place.

6. Professor Evans knows he is
the liar and his dialectic tricks will help save him for a little
longer, as will the legal protection he enjoys. But truth will out
in time -- and Revisionists don't care about winning or losing
battles. They seek clarification without threats of consequences.
Revisionists work without any social protection because they
embrace the factual truth of a matter, no matter how contentious.
Revisionists do not fear death and are not intimidated because we
only get one go at living on this earth!

Although I do not know Professor
Orange, from his adopted stance I can guess he is a man of
principles, and a man whose moral and intellectual courage and
integrity remain intact and for that I salute him. He obviously
does not suffer from a failure of moral nerve. And perhaps you
ought to be congratulated for running the article.

Fredrick Töben

The story continues.
In May 2003, Thomas Fudge, who teaches Mediaeval history at
Canterbury wrote a long paper to sum up and explain the Hayward
case. This article was published in the University's periodical History
Now. Some 500 copies were printed. The morning after the
publication, hell broke out. We have this from the local press:

Holocaust
scholar at heart of 'book burning' row

A "book burning"
scandal has erupted at Canterbury University over an article on
controversial Holocaust scholar Joel Hayward. The decision to
recall and destroy copies of the history department's journal History
Now -- and dump editor Ian Campbell -- is dividing the
academic community.
Canterbury lecturer Thomas Fudge, who wrote the offending article,
has resigned in disgust and plans to leave at the end of the year.
Dr Fudge said he could not remain at a university that suppressed
academic freedom. "It made me a hypocrite trying to teach my
students to think critically and ask the tough questions - all of
the academic values that universities are about -- and here my
department was saying, effectively, we're going to burn
books."
The article revisits the storm that surrounded the 1993 masters
thesis of former Canterbury student Joel Hayward, which questioned
the validity of Holocaust history. Dr Fudge, who lectures on
medieval religious dissent and witch-hunting, explored what for Dr
Hayward became a career-ending controversy.
He revealed in the article that Dr Hayward had been harassed and
received death threats against his children. Dr Hayward suffered
an emotional breakdown and left his teaching post at Massey
University in June last year. He now cannot get a job.The Fate of Joel Hayward in New Zealand Hands: From Holocaust
Historian to Holocaust? played on the title of his thesis, The
Fate of Jews in German Hands.
The article appeared on May 6. Next morning, Professor Campbell
was asked to appear before his editorial committee and history
department head Peter Hempenstall.. Professor Campbell said he was
effectively pushed: "The fact is that board disapproved of my
editorial decision and, as a result, I couldn't continue as
editor."
An embargo was slapped on the journal and 500 copies recalled.
Staff were later advised that copies of the offending journal had
been destroyed on the authority of Professor Hempenstall. Another
May edition of History Now was printed without the Fudge article
and an editorial discussing truth and martyrdom.
On May 14, Dr Fudge defended his article at a special meeting of
history department academics, calling the censorship
"unconscionable". Last week, he confirmed to his
students that he had resigned. Professor Hempenstall declined to
speak, saying the matter had now become an employment issue
between the university and Dr Fudge.

Thus, two more scholars paid the blood
price exacted by the forces of Darkness. A shorter version was
finally made public in the New Zealand Herald, Wednesday,
July 23, 2003 and Thursday 24. We contacted Thomas Fudge with a
request for the full censored article and he obliged immediately by
sending it without further ado. For
more details se the complete article by Thomas Fudge. This is
the most up-to-date information of the fate befallen on Joel
Hayward. We knew it from the beginning: if you bow and apologize for
perfectly honorable endeavors, they are going to kick you and smash
you to death. No gratitude, no pardon, just revenge. They are not
Christians and do not share the Christian values of forgiveness or
pardon.

We believe that we are the only place where
the Fudge paper is to be found in its entirety. Though we did not
intend it. Some, in some quarters, had hoped that historian Fudge
would disappear in the thin air. He had first hinted to such a an
issue. But he decided to dig in on his heels and fight back

Lecturer
warns he will stay at university to battle for academic freedom

HISTORY lecturer Thomas Fudge
last night warned that he may stay at Canterbury University to
"battle out" his fight over academic freedom. Last
night, the university's council dismissed his formal complaint
over Vice-Chancellor Roy Sharp's handling of the furore over an
article Dr Fudge wrote for the university journal, History Now.

Dr Fudge had threatened to
resign after the university ordered the destruction of copies of
the journal in May, but now says he may reverse his decision and
stay. "If they think this is the end of it, I can assure the
chancellor, the vice-chancellor and the council it's not," he
said before giving a public lecture on the journal controversy in
Christchurch last night. "Maybe ... I won't resign after all
and will stay on to give them 30 years of grief."
Dr Fudge, yet to give formal notice of leaving at the end of the
year, has consulted a lawyer about the handling of his complaint
and will meet his lawyer again today to initiate legal action
against the university. "I intend to pursue this," he
said.

The university's council,
which also sought legal advice over the complaint, considers the
matter closed. After meeting for more than an hour behind closed
doors last night, council members unanimously reaffirmed their
full confidence in Professor Sharp. Members considered the advice
of the vice-chancellor's employment committee and resolved that
circumstances did not reveal any action or failure to act by
Professor Sharp that failed to protect, promote or enhance
academic freedom.

They also resolved that the
vice-chancellor's instruction to Dr Fudge that his lectures were
not the place to air his private dispute with colleagues did not
impinge on his freedom of expression. Council members also
condemned the release of Dr Fudge's letter of complaint to the
media as "most improper". Earlier in the meeting,
Chancellor Robin Mann criticised The Press newspaper, saying its
August 19 article about the complaint was irresponsible and
possibly defamatory.
This week, senior academics from several universities took out a
$1,200 advertisement containing 63 signatories from New Zealand
and overseas. It accused Canterbury of acting improperly in
endorsing a review of the thesis.

The New Zealand Herald,
28 August 2003

The Petition was published on the 25
August, 2003, as a commercial ad in The Dominion. Here is the
text:

PETITION:
TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY

In relation to the master's thesis
of Joel Hayward at the University of Canterbury, we note the
following events, of which the first five are detailed on the
University's own website:

I . Joel Hayward was awarded a
Masters degree by thesis, with first class honours, by the
University of Canterbury in 1993, in accordance with the procedures
that the University employed at the time.

2. It was subsequently argued by an
external party that the degree should be revoked.

3. The University of Canterbury
established a Working Party in 2000 to examine this claim.

4. The Working Party concluded that
the thesis was not dishonest, and therefore could not be
"amended, removed, downgraded or altered". It further
concluded that the thesis was flawed and did not deserve the award
of first class honors.

5. The University accepted these
conclusions, apologised to those who were offended by the thesis,
and stated that it did not support holocaust revisionism.

6. Dr Hayward resigned from his
position at Massey University in 2002, apparently as a result of the
ongoing hostility towards him arising from the previous events.

7. Recently, Dr Thomas Fudge of
Canterbury's History Department wrote a review of these events, for
inclusion in the University's journal 'History Now'. Although the
journal was printed with this article, the Head of the University's
History Department (Professor Peter Hempenstall) destroyed copies of
the journal, with the concurrence of the University's
Vice-Chancellor (Professor Roy Sharp). As a result of this action by
the University, the editor (Associate Professor lan Campbell) has
now left that position, and Dr Fudge has indicated his intention to
resign from the University.

Our views on these events are as
follows. Notwithstanding any personal misgivings or objections that
individual signatories may have as to the content of the thesis, we
believe that certain fundamental principles have been breached by
the University. First. we accept that a University has both the
right and the obligation to revoke any thesis on the grounds of
proven dishonesty. However, in the event of it not revoking a thesis
on those grounds, we believe that it is totally inappropriate for
any university administrator or sponsored body to issue negative
public judgements about it, or to apologise to anyone who may be
offended by it. No student should be subject to a de facto second
round of assessment as to the quality (as opposed to the honesty) of
their thesis, particularly after having just been exonerated of the
charge of dishonesty.

Secondly, we believe that the
Working Party's actions in criticising the quality of the thesis.
and the University's public reiteration of that, constitutes the
very 'downgrade' that the Working Party asserted to be unwarranted.
We consider it inconceivable that the University and the Working
Party did not understand the contradiction involved here.

Thirdly, we do not believe that it
is the business of any university administrator to issue public
pronouncements upon any historical issue, that are unrelated to the
University. This is a matter for individual academics in the
relevant area, in the normal exercise of their professional duties.

Finally, whilst there may be a
range of opinions concerning the University's action in destroying
copies of 'History Now', we view he destruction of any published
academic work with considerable concern. These concerns are not
ameliorated by the University's earlier and clear breaches of the
fundamental rights of a thesis student, of its own judgement that
the thesis could not be downgraded, and of the proper boundary
between academics and administrators in the issuing of public
statements.

We further consider that the effect
of the University's actions has been to send a clear signal to
potential students and other researchers at the University as to the
acceptable conclusions to be reached in a particular area of
enquiry, and this is antithetical to the proper function of any
university. Furthermore. the effect of the University's actions is
likely to have contributed to the general climate of hostility
towards Dr Hayward, and therefore to his subsequent resignation from
Massey University.

These University actions are
improper, and place an obligation upon the University of Canterbury
to acknowledge its errors and to offer appropriate remedies to Dr
Hayward.

Petition Organiser: Martin Lally,
Associate Professor, School of Economics and Finance, Victoria
University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington <martin.Ially@vuw.ac.nz>.
Further signatories are very welcome, and should if possible be
communicated to me by email. Contributions to the cost of this
advertisement are also welcome.

Paid advertisement published in The
Dominion Post, around the 25 of August 2003, we believe. After
publication, a hundred more scholars signed it. Ask Mr Lally.

Some days later, an exchange between Mr
Lally, organizer of the Petition, and Mr Evans, pointman for the
lobby, found its way on Irving website:

Thursday, August 28, 2003

Dear Richard

Thanks for your response, which
appears below. I appreciate that you are busy.

I note that you don't wish to
answer the latest questions that I have posed. Of course, that is
your privilege. You also note that I have not addressed any of the
arguments that you put forward in response to my first round of
questions (although strangely your email finishes with the
contrary claim that all of the ground has been covered more than
once). Your complaint is a fair one to raise, and it was my
intention to deal with your arguments in due course. However, if
you would prefer me to do that now, I am happy to do so. I would
appreciate it if you framed your points in terms of questions that
you wish me to respond to. If you wish, you can ask a set of
questions or alternatively ask one question, wait on my response,
then move to the next question (in the style of a cross
examination).

At the end of all this (you
will be the judge of that), I hope that you will then be willing
to respond to my questions, but this is not essential. I am
interested in your questions at least as much as I am in your
answers, and I acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong in this
matter.

Your email here implicitly
poses at least one question. So, if you can forgive the
presumption, I will answer that one here.

QUESTION 1: Should a university
recognise a work of holocaust denial?
ANSWER 1: The word university here could be interpreted to mean a
university administrator or an academic acting as an examiner on
the thesis. I will consider both possibilities. First, regarding
university administrators, I do not think that any university
administrator should assert that certain propositions regarding
the past are now settled, and must never again be questioned in a
thesis. This would be true even if no new evidence had been
unearthed, and therefore the debate was limited to
reinterpretation of the existing evidence. Should new evidence be
unearthed, it would be doubly remarkable for any university
administrator to refuse to award a degree that presented and
analysed that new information. To do so in the face of new
information would itself constitute a case of denial.

Turning now to the question of
whether an academic examiner on a thesis should recognise a work
of holocaust denial, my view is that they should read it and then
reach a conclusion based upon that reading. I am not aware of
any other method of assessing a thesis. If there are other
recognised methodologies in assessing History theses, I would be
grateful to be apprised of them.

I look forward to your next
question or questions. Regards,
Martin Lally

-------

Friday, 29 August 2003

Dear Martin,

Apologies for the delay in
replying. My time over the last week has been fully taken up by
correcting the proofs of both English and German editions of my
next book, due out in October.

It's time to wrap this up, I
think. As I said in my last email, I am not going to answer your
latest questions because I think they are not only loaded but also
beside the point, which is not procedural but substantive. Your
additional questions are even more pedantically remote from the
central issues of whether or not a university should recognise a
work of Holocaust denial, or a work devoted to vindicating it. You
yourself have not addressed any of the central arguments I put
forward in response to your questions.

I note that Dr Hayward was
given considerable space in the New Zealand Herald on
Monday to attacking me, using the same selective and biased
techniques that are so evident in his MA thesis. Lest anyone
should take what he says seriously, let me make the following
points.

* First, Hayward implies I am
biased because I was paid for my work. On the Irving case I was
paid the standard hourly rate that all expert witnesses are paid.
Is Dr Hayward implying that no expert witnesses in any court cases
can be trusted because they are paid for their work? As for my
commission from the NZJC to report on Hayward's thesis, I
undertook the work (about four working days) on the same basis as
I would have done as an external examiner, and I asked for the
usual token fee that an external examiner is paid.. I did not want
to be seen to be doing the work on a political basis, which no
doubt I would have been accused of doing had I lent my services
free of charge, but on a professional basis.
* Second, to repeat what I wrote in the NZH, the Working Party did
not say I was highly partisan - this is pure invention on
Hayward's part - but accepted my criticisms of his thesis as
resting on a strong scholarly foundation.
* Thirdly, Hayward says I applied excessively high standards in
judging his thesis. This is not so. Any thesis at any level, even
an undergraduate dissertation, has to conform to basic standards
of scholarship: it has to master the relevant secondary literature
and it has to deal with its topic in a balanced, obje ctive and
thorough manner. Hayward's thesis failed on all these counts.
* Fourthly, I did point out that the topic Hayward covered was far
too large for an MA thesis, and the thesis itself was far too long
and tried to cover far more ground than was possible in the time
available. This is the fault of Canterbury University, whose then
regulations let him down. But it does not excuse the systematic
tendentiousness , bias, double standards, lack of objectivity and
all the other faults that the Working Party agreed were present in
the thesis.

Finally, Dr Hayward repeats
some of the Holocaust deniers' claims that he supported in his
thesis (that most historians of the Holocaust are Jewish, for
example) [Does Evans mean that "most" historians of
the Holocaust are Welsh, for instance ? ] and which, despite
the selective quotes in his article, his thesis used to try and
discredit their work. It would be nice to see him admit he was
wrong on this and other claims he makes in the thesis, as he has
not done so far.

I think we have covered all the
ground more than once now, so I'll sign off.

Then Philip Matthews re-entered the circus.
He flashed e-mails to a lot of people, including us, which is what
prompted Irving's warning about the sinister intentions of the
journalist. See above. (We know for a fact that all journalists are
bent on denouncing us. They crave for recognition from the
powers-that-be.) Here is the result of this agitation:

Canterbury Tales

By Philip Matthews

There is a question that,
judging from the tone of his response, no one had previously thought
to put Canterbury University historian Thomas Fudge. What is his
opinion the Joel Hayward master's thesis on which he seems to have
staked both his public and academic reputation? "My opinion on
the Hayward thesis?" he says. "I don't know that I've got
an opinion on the Hayward thesis."
Well, is the thesis correct or is it flawed? "I'm not in a
position to judge that, actually." Because he is not a
specialist in the area?" Yeah,yeah." Its rightness or
wrongness is not an issue? "No, it isn't. And I'm not just
trying to dodge the question. It is a subject that is not within my
scholarly purview. It would be unfair of me to say that it's a good
thesis or a bad thesis."
So, because his field of expertise is medieval and reformation
history, Fudge is unable to offer any judgement on such Hayward
claims as "The weight of evidence supports the view that the
Nazis did not systematically exterminate Jews in gas chambers.
He can't even hazard a guess or offer a hunch. But this seems
to contradict his privately circulated views of the thesis.
Last year, when the Listener investigated the ongoing
controversy of the Hayward thesis ("In denial", November
2, 2002), the thesis's supervisor and examiner, Canterbury history
professor Vincent Orange, broke his silence at the eleventh hour to
release a letter to the Listener. The letter, written to
former Canterbury University chancellor Phyllis Guthardt in April
2001, describes the documents that Orange had compiled in his and
Hayward's defence when a Canterbury University working party
examined the thesis -- although Orange did not release the documents
themselves. Describing a letter from Fudge to Orange, written in
April 2000 just as the Hayward thesis became a national story,
Orange writes, "His [Fudge's] warm approval of the thesis
attracts no comment from the working party." In another entry,
Fudge "finds much merit in the work", according to Orange.
He offers support to both Hayward and Orange in further letters, as
does fellow Canterbury history professor Ian Campbell.
Orange's summary of Fudge's April 2000 letter continues, "and
yet Thomas is recognised as a careful scholar. It may be objected
that he is not a specialist in Holocaust studies. The same is true
of all three members of the working party. I regret that the
university did not ensure that at least one member of that party had
proven expertise in the field."
The one historian who did have unquestionable expertise in the field
was Richard Evans, professor of modern history at Cambridge. In
2000, Evans had just completed work as an expert witness in the
David Irving trial at the High Court in London. Irving, the world's
most famous Holocaust denier, had sued author Deborah Lipstadt;
Evans's analysis of the falsifications in Irving's work destroyed
both his legal case and his reputation as a historian. The New
Zealand Jewish council sought Evans's opinion on the Hayward
thesis and submitted that opinion -- a 71-page report to the working
party. Evans argued that Hayward's thesis was "a thoroughly
tendentious, biased and dishonest piece of work" that clearly
constituted Holocaust denial. He recommended that Canterbury strip
Hayward of his mater's degree. While agreeing that the thesis was
"flawed", the university was unable to prove dishonesty, a
required ground for revoking a degree. Thus Canterbury remained the
only reputable university in the world to endorse a work of
Holocaust denial.
Yet the affair still nagged at Fudge. In his capacity as the editor
of the history department's journal, History Now, Ian
Campbell commissioned an essay from Fudge on the Hayward story.
Given the support that both men had offered Hayward, it was no
surprise that the resulting essay attacked Evans and others while
seeking to rehabilitate the Holocaust-denying thesis. When the
journal appeared in May, the department withdrew it, sacked Campbell
as its editor and held a crisis meeting at which the volatile Fudge
spontaneously offered his resignation (he has since publicly
signalled his intention to remain "for 30 years"; but also
says, in a subsequent interview, that he may yet leave). Why did the
department withdraw the journal? Among the reasons cited are fears
of defamation action, Fudge's misuse of personal and
interdepartmental correspondence and breaching of an informal
agreement that Fudge would stop discussing the Hayward affair in
public. It was also noted that Campbell should have sought the prior
approval of his departmental colleagues, most of whom did not share
Fudge's view that Hayward was an academic martyr.
A bowdlerised version of the Fudge essay, minus some of the more
extreme claims and the 85 footnotes, appeared in newspapers in July.
The same newspapers made righteous noises about "academic
freedom", although, as Evans has since written, the issue is
different: "It is rather the upholding of academic standards.
Nobody has stopped Hayward or Fudge from publishing what they have
written. Whether or not it should receive the imprimatur of a
respected university is the question at issue. It's a question that
seems to be beyond Fudge's understanding: he charged that the
University's vice chancellor, Roy Sharp, suppressed his academic
freedom. Last month, the University council found Sharp had not done
so. Fudge had always, Sharp has said, been free to publish in the
public arena. "Indeed, Fudge was offered suggestions as to
other media in which he could publish."
However, Fudge and others managed to sneak some copies of the
original journal past the ban. Fudge sent one copy to Hayward, for
example. The original, unedited essay has also appeared on the
website of a group dedicated to the circulation of Holocaust denying
material. [This is AAARGH, of course but the guy is too shy to
tell it. ] "The above complete version has been kindly sent
to us by the author," the site's reprints editor writes. Fudge
professes ignorance of the website - which is not one that any
credible historian would be willingly associated with - and claims
not to have given permission to reprint. Contacted by the Listener,
the site's manager reiterates his claim that Fudge "supplied
the copy".

[The account is not entirely
honest: Let's quote from his demand by e-mail: «Your reprint of
Fudge's original version of his Hayward essay concludes with a
note that Fudge approved publication and supplied the copy. He
denies this. Are you able to tell me which is true?» We replied
immediately: «He supplied the copy but we decided the
publication, or, to be exact, the re-publication, as this text had
already been published, as you know.» We had in fact written: «The
above complete version has been kindly sent to us by the author
and we would like to thank him.» The allegation that this means
that Thomas Fudge has "approved" our publication is a
figment of the journalist imagination, obsessed by his pursuit of
guilt-labelling.]

The original, unedited essay challenges Fudge's image as "a
careful scholar". Lincoln University lecturer Greg Ryan has
written to the Press (July 31), claiming that Fudge
"selectively and inaccurately represented" a private
conversation held nearly three years earlier. "I am left to
ponder the ethics of Fudge's approach to oral history in that
private conversations are documented and reproduced without the
knowledge or consent of the source," Ryan wrote.
This writer has also had experience of Fudge's peculiar biases and
inaccuracies. Among the material cut from Fudge's essay for
newspaper publication was a paragraph on the Listener,
including a quote attributed to myself that I did not recognise
("Nothing new had appeared for a while," was attributed to
me as the reason for doing last November's story). "It came
from one of the people that you talked to late last year,"
Fudge said, when asked. "I don't remember who it was,
offhand." When it was put to him that he was unable to provide
a source, he replied: "I don't know if I am unable or
unwilling."
Huh? What was the mystery, as I obviously knew the names of all
those I talked to last year? My belief is that this quote might be a
distorted version of a comment made to Hayward during an
off-the-record conversation. This would call into question Fudge's
endnote that "neither Joel Hayward nor Vincent Orange has been
associated with the preparation of this article". Clarifying;
Fudge says, "that endnote was put there simply to deflect
comments that Hayward and Orange were behind it".
From there, the interview -- my first of two with Fudge -- descended
into farce. Fudge spoke about "speculation" -- "I'm
not going to mention names" -- about myself, the Listener and
"your motivations and your journalism". When asked to
elaborate, he said, "I'm not at liberty to repeat."
Pressed further, he offered, "speculation among media
specialists in the country". Which media specialists? Pressed
further still, he managed to come up with Canterbury's public
relations department: "There's all kinds of people," he
added. But what about these secret motivations? Are they at all
related to "the specialist interest group" -- read: the
Jewish community -- that the website of Holocaust denier David
Irving believes is behind the Listener's journalism?

OF COURSE, PARANOID WEIRDNESS is
never too far from the surface when one looks into the world of the
Holocaust denier and those who apologise for them. Running
contemporaneously with Fudge's ill-fated "academic
freedom" campaign has been the emergence of the story's
self-styled victim, Joel Hayward. When Hayward's thesis emerged from
the obscurity of its six-year embargo into the glare of negative
attention in late 1999, he was moved to attach an addendum
[see above] that apologised for his errors and any offence
caused to the Jewish community. Many took the apology as sincere.
Since July, Hayward has broken his silence in some media. In the
absence of an explanation from him -- Hayward is unwilling to answer
any questions put by the Listener -- one can only speculate
about why. Either Hayward has sensed that public and media support
for a nebulous idea of "academic freedom" is strong enough
to rehabilitate him and his thesis, or, having resigned from his
position at Massey University last year, he sees that he has nothing
to lose in the academic world. When he apologised in 2000, he had a
teaching position to protect.
Many in the media have happily bought the image of Hayward as
victim. TV3's 60 Minutes went to air with Hayward's claims that he
received death threats in 2000, even though, the story's producer
Paula Penfold concedes, no evidence of threats exists and Hayward
never lodged a complaint with the police. "We spent a couple of
days with him, and found him to be genuine and credible,"
Penfold says. In this same report, Hayward produced a bullet that he
claimed had been handed to him, in his Massey office, to signify a
threat to his life. "You'll get yours, mate," was the
alleged threat. [This is hapeaning in Paris where a dozen of
known antizionists have (2003) received a bullet with a caption
saying: "The next one will not come through the post
office", a typical Jewish extremist threat. ]

However, the Listener has a
signed affidavit that this bullet -- a dud from a World War era
rifle that few in New Zealand would use -- was presented to Hayward
as a "keepsake" by a defence studies student. If this
"you'll get yours, mate" sentence ever occurred, it did
not come from that student. Is Hayward a harmless fantasist or is
this victim act a smokescreen for the rehabilitation of the thesis's
more dangerous leanings? Certainly, Hayward's former cohorts in the
Holocaust denial industry never believed his apology to be genuine.
Active deniers Irving, Fredrick Toben and Robert Countess -- on
whose Alabama property Hayward was photographed shooting a gun in
1994, during a period in which he said he had no further contact
with deniers -- have written and spoken of continued correspondence
and contact with Hayward that suggests a different image to the mask
he has worn in public.
"I have no reason to believe that Hayward really changed his
view of his fine thesis," Countess wrote to me, "but he
did make 'a public apology ' for fear of the Jews." Countess
goes on, using appropriately muscular language: "Hayward is not
a man of the personality type to be bold.. He is a good and decent
fellow and a fine scholar, but his personality is weak... He erred
greatly in his personal weaknesses before the Jewish
onslaught." Publicly, Hayward has made efforts to distance
himself from this kind of rhetoric. In his addendum,
he wrote about "negative experiences with certain
revisionists" who spread "anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi
conspiracies".

HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE of Hayward's most recent public pronouncements
is beginning to differ from the prostrate tone of 2000 when he faced
that alleged "Jewish onslaught". [Note the use of the
word "alleged". Matthews is trying to convince his readers
that the persecution did not happen, that it is purely delusional.
That is what a cheap employee of the lobby is really aiming at:
whitewashing his masters. ] In a letter to the Press
(August 12, 2003), he offers the opinion that "a student can
ask honest questions about the Holocaust and arrive at
unconventional answers" -- how does that compare to the mea
culpa of his 2000 addendum with its reference to his admitted
"errors of fact and interpretation"? In that addendum, he
fretted about "causing distress to the Jewish community".
Now, in a column syndicated in New Zealand newspapers in late
August, he believes that the university "should never have
succumbed to external pressures from any minority or
special-interest group" rather than stand firm and hold
up the principles of free inquiry and free speech, it buckled
..." Does this mean that Hayward has gone back on his apology?
We would love to ask.
In the same column, Hayward mentions -- three times, in fact -- that
Evans was paid for his assessment of the thesis and his work on the
Irving case. The innuendo is nasty -- could Evans be bought? By
those Jews with their moneybags? -- but is easily refuted. On the
Irving case, Evans was paid the standard hourly rate that witnesses
are paid. [In that case, only 250,000 US $..., not including the
royalties for the book he published afterwards, using the same
material he had already been paid for. ] "Is Hayward
implying that no expert witnesses in any court cases can be trusted
because they are paid for their work?" Evans writes.
For the New Zealand Jewish Council, he received a token fee for four
days' work. "I did not want to be seen to be doing the work on
a political basis, which no doubt I would have been accused of doing
had I lent my services free of charge, but on a professional
basis." [Professional witness, huh ? ]
The reality of Evans's token fee undermines Hayward's self-pitying
remark that he, unlike the Jewish Council, "could not afford to
employ an expert". Such a fee would not have been beyond a
lecturer's salary. The question is, what kind of "expert
historian" would have gone in to bat for Hayward's thesis?
Irving, perhaps?
Running parallel to all this is the circulation of a petition,
devised by Victoria University economics professor Martin Lally,
calling for an apology to be granted to Hayward [see above. ].
It also deals with other, more general issues of academic freedom
and university process -- so general, apparently, that MP Rodney
Hide was happy to sign the petition without having read either the
Hayward thesis or the unedited Fudge essay. However, at the time of
going to press, the only two New Zealand historians to have added
their names to it are both retired from academic life and implicated
in the thesis's contents -- Vincent Orange was its supervisor and
internal examiner and John Jensen, formerly of Waikato University,
was its external examiner.
These events are being watched with fascination by the international
Holocaust denial network, who seem to see New Zealand as fertile
ground (Irving has announced plans for a visit early next year).
Fudge's essay and statements and Hayward's letters appear on denial
websites with approving headlines and endnotes; Lally's pedantic
correspondence with Evans somehow made its way to Irving's online
"action report" (Lally claims that he has had no direct
contact with Irving, and assumes that his emails were forwarded by
one of the 300 that he copied his correspondence to) as did,
somewhat amusingly, my own correspondence with Lally about how his
correspondence reached Irving (same answer, presumably). A thesis
reconsidering the Nuremberg trial, written by former Canterbury
student Stephen Daniel Eaton, marked by Orange and presented by
Hayward with his own thesis to Robert Countess - although Hayward
later denied, to the Listener, ever having even read Eaton's thesis
- has appeared online with a new preface by Countess attacking the
New Zealand Jewish Council as, predictably, "vicious, envious,
hate-filled, racist, anti-intellectual ideologues". [Again,
Matthews is too shy to say where the thesis "appeared"... ]
The removal of New Zealand Herald cartoonist Malcolm Evans -- who
produced some work critical of Israel -- was taken as evidence of a
powerful and censorial Jewish lobby by media commentator Brian
Edwards. Edwards was immediately hailed as a courageous spokesman by
Holocaust denier Fredrick Toben for his statement, recorded in the Waikato
Times, that, "I want to say that the Holocaust didn't
happen, then I should be allowed to say that. " Edwards was
trying to make a point about free speech, rather than deny the
Holocaust. However, as it stands in New Zealand, he already is
allowed to say that it didn't happen.. The real point, though, is
why would anyone want to? Why would such overwhelming documentary
evidence as exists for the Holocaust be wilfully denied? Swiss
Holocaust denier Jurgen Graf, whose work is titled The Holocaust
on Trial, has summed up the mindset: "If the Holocaust were
publicly exposed as a shameless fraud, if people all over the world
learned that, while the Jews undoubtedly were brutally persecuted
during the Second World War, there was no attempt to exterminate
them, that the death factories, gas chambers and gas vans were a
Jewish swindle, and that the six million figure was a fantastic
exaggeration, the Zionist led 'New World Order' would be all but
finished? [The consequences] would be catastrophic beyond repair for
international Jewry and the state of Israel."
In the world of the Holocaust denier, naked anti-Semitism is now
dressed up with otherwise unrelated criticism of Israel -- this is
why you will also find links to pro-Palestinian reporting on
Irving's website.. Valid criticisms can be made of Israel as an
occupying military power, but Holocaust deniers are not renowned for
their support of oppressed minorities, unless that minority happens
to be engaged in urban warfare with Jews. Holocaust denial begins
with anti-Semitism as the irrational driving force and then looks
for intellectual or pseudo-intellectual support: it's the hatred of
a race that extends to hatred of a nation. And in New Zealand, the
Holocaust deniers have found otherwise reputable academics who are
able to be exploited by this hatred. [All cheap lies. We hate
nobody, not even Matthews. We pity them.]

Kerry Bolton's Letter to The
Listener
15 September 2003
Editor NZ Listener
Having read Dr Joel Hayward's thesis on holocaust revisionism, the
Canterbury University working party report and the full text of Dr
Thomas Fudge's article, I would like to make a few comments on
Philip Matthews' article (Canterbury Tales, 20 September).
Dr Fudge is an expert on the inquisition and heresies, and his
article on Hayward was written on that basis.
Richard Evans, lauded by Mathews as the "holocaust
expert" who provided testimony at the Irving-Lipstadt libel
trial and for the NZ Jewish Council, was criticised by both the
Canterbury working party tribunal and Justice Gray in Britain, for
his polemical, emotional statements.
The working party's main criticism of Hayward was that he had
offered a conclusion which was outside the scope of his thesis
requirements. The working party report shows that "like
Justice Gray at the Irving-Lipstadt trial" the tribunal was
not capable of comprehending the significance of the technical
evidence regarding gas chambers and the plausibility of execution
by diesel.
Mathews fails to acknowledge the academic credentials of the
revisionists he cites, doctors Countess and Toben. Proponents of
holocaust orthodoxy claim that revisionism has no academic
standing. Most spokesmen for revisionism are academics, or are
qualified in relevant fields such as engineering and toxicology. I
would challenge Mathews as to whether most revisionists are
pro-Nazi or anti-Semitic. Among the first to question holocaust
orthodoxy was Prof. Paul
Rassinier, imprisoned at Buchenwald as a leader of the French
resistance.
Where Dr Hayward errs is in his retraction of his conclusions. The
original Leuchter investigation of the alleged Auschwitz gas
chambers has been professionally replicated by Germar
Rudolf, chemical analysis showing that there is insufficient
cyanide residue for these buildings to have been used for mass
executions.
K R Bolton

Then Bob Countess:

Dear Mr. Matthews:
I have just read your article in THE LISTENER about the Hayward
controversy and I believe you have quoted me rather accurately in
terms of my remarks about both the Hayward thesis and the Eaton
thesis.
Perhaps you will do me the courtesy of answering the following
question: Why is Holocaust Denial of greater significance than
Resurrection Denial?
In so far as I have taught on the college and university levels
for many years both in these United States and in the Ukraine and
The Netherlands, and given lectures in Germany, in my field of New
Testament Greek, I have learned that a fundamental genius lying
within the framework of the Western Enlightenment mentality is
that ON THE UNIVERSITY LEVEL, THERE OUGHT TO BE AND MUST BE A
RADICALLY OPEN ATMOSPHERE FOR OPEN DEBATE ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES
OF HISTORY, POLITICS, SCIENCE, AND RELIGION.
The entire Hayward and Eaton affair points -- at least in New
Zealand -- AWAY FROM this centuries old Enlightenment tradition.
Might it be within your ability to analyze and write an
article on this Enlightenment tradition that millions of us
cherish so dearly? And might you THEN focus on WHY it is
that Holocaust Denial is punishable by fines and loss of
employment and even imprisonment in some countries in 2003?
You certainly SEEM to have at least minimal literary ability to
compose and publish relevant articles, although your demeanor
SEEMS to be rather haughty against those with whom you disagree.
Please inform me if I am incorrect in this surmise on my
part.
Sincerely for full freedom to pursue the Enlightenment tradtion
there in Kiwi-Land,
-- Robert H. Countess, in Alabama.

Then, the usual Jewish view in a business
paper

Media
watch: Open minds, empty minds and the Holocaust

by David Cohen

Don't believe the guy who once
said the problem with history is that there's no future in it.
The dust has been disturbed yet again in the long-buried case of
Joel Hayward and the University of Canterbury.
Another scholar is seeking to still or confirm the question of
whether Dr Hayward was the victim of an academic witch-hunt on
account of the revisionist views he once took but has since
repudiated on the subject of the Holocaust. Do we need this?
Apparently so. Already the opening of this old casket has got a
number of local media outlets loudly sneezing, such is their
passion for unfettered historical investigation, as they claim to
understand it.
Their general position has found support this past fortnight, with
a raft of press interviews given by Dr Hayward to mark his
colleague's relitigation of the original scandal.
The work, you'll recall, argued that far fewer than six million
Jews, perhaps fewer than one million, perished in concentration
camps during the time of Nazi rule across most of Europe.
It speculated that the idea of gas chambers being used against the
innocent during World War II might have been a propaganda invented
by the UK, the US and Jewish lobbyists in the thrall of Zionist
forces. It postulated that Hitler could not be held personally
responsible for the situation. And so on.
As somebody who was involved in reporting on the situation at the
time, I have no personal judgment to make on Dr Hayward, who has
said he now wishes only to concentrate on his new career as a
freelance scholar. But the latest surge of coverage isn't only
about the acknowledged "mistakes" a 29-year-old student
made a decade ago. It's about the way in which a confused local
media irrigates the past.
This has not been our finest hour. With only three lonely,
impressive and, it has to be said, left-leaning exceptions --
stand up, Anthony Hubbard of the Sunday Star-Times, New
Zealand Herald columnist Diana Wichtel and the Listener's
Philip Matthews -- the tendency on the journalistic front has been
far more toward what the Amer ican columnist George F. Will once
tactfully characterised as historical amnesia, fumigated by gassy
notions of "tolerance" that cannot distinguish
between an open mind and an empty mind when it comes to the
critical world events of the past century.
Peculiarly uninformed when it comes to the collective fate that
befell European Jewry during World War II, the empty heads
have clucked on about little else other than the need to maintain
the air of scepticism Dr Hayward attempted to cast over the topic
in his ill-starred master's thesis.
As an editorial in the New Zealand Herald put it, "All
of history has to be open to constant reappraisal of events, their
causes and consequences and the light they throw on the past and
present."
Much the same point was made, implicitly and somewhat less
elegantly, in an impromptu apologia written by Diana McCurdy in
the Dominion-Post, which included the fatuous warning of
"a possible backlash against the Jewish community" if
they or others were to ever again make known their displeasure at
their history being so reappraised.
On first blush the stance may appear high-minded, even
impressively sophisticated; it could also be described as
pernicious and kind of creepy.
To be sure, history is about open-ended questions. So is
journalism. As Mr Will asks, speaking on behalf of those who
practise the other craft, what kind of student of history makes a
career out of denying the reality of an almost contemporary event
that has been recorded graphically, documented bureaucratically
and described in vast detail by victims, bystanders and
perpetrators?
More than three years have passed since Canterbury was forced to
ask itself the same question after first apologising to the
country's tiny Jewish community for the unwarranted distress
caused by its conferral of a master's degree for the 360-page
dissertation The Fate of Jews in German Hands: An Historical
Inquiry into the Development and Significance of Holocaust
Revisionism.
An independent inquiry convened by the university later found the
work to be seriously flawed and its central conclusions
unjustified. They acknowledged that the affair had been deeply
embarrassing to one of the country's most respected institutions
of higher learning, a university that has long had a special claim
to know better than most on questions of bogus history.
Canterbury, after all, is the same institution that provided the
setting for two of last century's most seminal philosophical
works, The Open Society and Its Enemies and The Poverty
of Historicism, both of them exegesis on the pseudoscientific
ideas about "history" put forward by Plato, Hegel and
Marx, which were completed there in the 1940s by the
Jewish-Austrian émigré Sir Karl Popper.
Like many others here from a similar background, the culturally
assimilated Sir Karl arrived looking for shelter from the
cataclysmic events opening up at the time in Europe, whose reality
has been academically contested at the master's level of study in
just one country during the past 60 years.
In awarding the Hayward degree with honours, Sir Karl's old
institution achieved the dubious distinction of becoming the only
accredited institution of higher learning in the world ever known
to have conferred an MA on the basis of a historical
"inquiry" of this type.
The good news is that the work's author has since apologised and
indicated his willingness to move on. So has the university. Isn't
it about time the epistemologically challenged in the forthright
estate followed suit?

We had resumed the publication
online of the Hayward Thesis. The Eaton thesis had to be removed
under duress. For the time being. They belong to us, the readers,
those who pay taxes for universities to give degrees to valuable
students. Their work belong to the community at large. The theses
are always available in university libraries, and most often
circulated in different ways. That is what libraries are made for.
We act as a library, just on line.

Nov 2003:
Joel Hayward : The Return

«It also seemed
futile for an alleged
"denier" to be denying his denial.» JH

There were signs in the summer of
2003. JH was obviously getting out depression. He was standing
again. Wrote to newspapers. And then, in a matter of a few days, he
launched a new website to his own name and attacked us viciously.
Alive, he was obviously alive again. Looking for vindication. Why
not ? Let's see what he has got to say:

My goal in establishing and
regularly updating this site is not to participate in any
politically motivated debates, especially the long-running and, in
my experience, distasteful, international Holocaust
revisionism/anti-Holocaust revisionism debate..

I have no interest in that or
any other political debate. I do not feel any need to tell people
what is "true" and what is not, or what is
"right" and what is not. People can make up their own
minds, and I certainly don't mind if they disagree.

He is "prompted" by
injurious articles, specially those published by The Listener.
But he seems frightened. We see that in the disclamer. Such a
panicky disclaimer cannot be found anywhere else on the Web. The guy
is scared. Of what ?

Please note: these webpages are
my copyrighted property. I did not, do not, and will not give
permission for any of my pages or their particular content to
appear on any other individual's or organisation's website(s). If
any of my material appears elsewhere it has not been copied or
placed there with my permission.

He insists: " Dr Joel Hayward
is not a Holocaust revisionist and does not support Holocaust
revisionism." But of course. Revisionist have always maintained
that he was not part of their crowd. Those who maintain that
he is a revisionist are the enemies of free speech, the
enemies of the revisionists, and the enemies of anybody who dares
not to bow in front of the governor's hat.
In order do dispel any idea that he would lean towards any kind of
racism, Dr Joel is proposing, as a first page, a visit to the Jesse
Owens family in Alabama. The only difficult thing to believe is that
Jesse Owens was part of his pantheon, since, in 1936, when Owens won
these goldmedals at the Berlin Olympics, Dr Joel was far from being
born... It looks very much like a device to deflect accusations of
racism that could be launched by the enemies of free speech, the
lobby whose existence is often denied.

Then we learn that Dr Joel has
signed a contract mith a major publisher to write his autobiography.
As the life of Mr Joel Hayward seems abolutely devoid of the least
interest, it seems quite probable that the crux of the story will be
the Jewish persecution of Dr Hayward. Although he may coat it with a
thick layer of sugar, the result might appear unpalatable to Our
Good Masters who so kindly police our minds. But let's wait till
next June (2004).

To protect his ass, Dr Joel is now
led to reclaim what he calls his "Jewish heritage":

«Even before I began my
university studies I had gained a strong reading ability in
Hebrew, which I studied because of pride in what I long believed
was my Jewish heritage on mum's side of the family. My nana,
Myrtle Bush, identified herself as Jewish, and my dear mum and I,
more so than my two siblings, took an interest in all things
Jewish.»

It is not quite cetrtain that he
can get the rabbinical certificate and the benefit of the Law of
Return.
As he himself feels this is not enough, we are now treated with a
Zionist declaration:

As well as learning Hebrew I
travelled to the small nation I felt a bond with: Israel, the
Jewish homeland. This is a photo of a very young me in Tel Arad,
Israel, in 1989 or 1990, the year before I commenced my
now-controversial masters thesis. Notice the menorah (Jewish
candlestick) necklace. [Photo]
I loved my times in Israel and believe without reservation that,
while Palestinian grievances need addressing (and they are a
lovely people, like their Israeli Jewish neighbours), Israel is a
legitimate state that has given Jews a sense of focus and safety
after the horrors of World War II. I have never wavered in this
belief. As I said in the 15 April 2002 issue of the Evening
Standard: "Israel clearly has a right to exist within its
current borders, and its citizens must be able to live in safety.

Let's point out that Israel is
totally devoid of any legitimacy and owes its existence to sheer
force. Support of Israeli genocidal policy will bring condemnation
from the future international courts.

Then we reach the heart of the
problem:

The New Zealand Jewish
Council would later claim that I relied mainly on revisionist
sources and made inadequate efforts to obtain anti-revisionist, or
Jewish, sources. I can refute this claim with a clear conscience
and plenty of proof.

In fact, and we could give hundreds of exemples, those who write
about revisionism are not supposed, if they want to remain on the
safe side, to quote any document, or book, or article, written by a
revisionist. The latest exemple that we could cite is a thesis,
later a book, written by a Canadian lawyer, in French, Martin
Imbleau, La Négation du génocide nazi -- le négationnisme de
la Shoah en droit international et comparé (Paris, L'Harmattan,
2003) [Shoah denial in international Law] who achieves a great
success: in his 442 pages, he does not quote once a
"negationist" author, while he makes a prolific use of the
non-scholarly polemical works of anti-revisionist authors. If Dr
Hayward had followed this wise path, he would never have a problem
and he could play tennis with the golden boys of the New Zealand
Jewish Federation.

Worse. He has written to the
established anti-revisionist authors in the field, crying for help,
and he got nothing:

I also asked Professor Browning,
and all the others, as well as The American Jewish Committee and
Shelly Shapiro of Holocaust Survivors and Friends in Pursuit of
Justice, for evidence with which to rebut Mr Arthur Butz's central
theses.
I explained that I was a lowly but genuinely searching masters
student. I stated that I was actively opposed to antisemitism and
was not a revisionist, and added that, in fact, I was an
office-holder in The New Zealand Friends of Israel, Inc..
To my regret, and perhaps now their regret, these persons and
organisations provided nothing in the way of historical or
historiographical evidence.

He obviously did not know that the
Holy Story of the Holy Cost does not need any evidence. It is true
in itself. And the disbelievers will be sent to Hell.
He then mentions the original complaint by the established Jewish
body. We are still waiting for a complete version of this, and Dr
Joel said he has asked permission to put if on his website.

The original Complaint by the
New Zealand Jewish Council, dated 4 April 2000, appealed on a
strong emotional level for the stripping of my MA degree. It
stated in part:
"Over the two thousand year history of anti-Semitism,
Holocaust denial in our time follows on the heels of the earlier
accusations of Christ-killing, the Blood Libel, Desecration of the
Host, and promotion of the forgery, 'The Protocols of the Elders
of Zion,' some of which still continue while some have only
comparatively recently been dropped by the church. Holocaust
denial, as well as being anti-Jewish, aims to undermine historic
truth and exonerate the evils of Nazism."
The Complaint added: "Only revoking Joel Hayward's MA degree
will achieve the proper outcome. There may be procedural
awkwardness, but this should not be allowed to outweigh the moral,
academic and historical correctness of revoking the degree."

JH wants the public to be able to
judge now:

It is my hope that, now both
sides of the story have been told, the fair-minded New Zealand
public will make up its own mind as to whether I am the architect
of my own misfortune or the victim of narrow-minded hostility and
maltreatment stirred up by the complainants, whose public
condemnations of me continued into 2001.

He adds he regets three things
only: the errors in his thesis (errors he always mentions but never
describes) and "some people's (never described) anger"
about these undetermined errors. And then "the misuse of the
thesis by certain racists and politically motivated cranks", a
direct allusion to people like us, except that we do not believe in
race, and our political motivations are freedom of thinking and
political freedom for all. Very crank indeed.
He also regrets that all his abject apologies were not aknowledged,
"fell on deaf ears", as he put it. We had told him before:
the more you apologize, the more they'll kick you in the head. He
adds that "during 2000 I twice sought arbitration with the New
Zealand Jewish Council." His requests were declined. He should
have known that the word "enough" is not part of their
vocabulary. Never enough. He went on his knees in 2003,
phoning repeatedly in person the horrible Zwartz (=Mr Black...),
thought policeman of the New Zealand Zionist Federation, pleading
for mercy and the guy gave him the boot. Haha ! Could be funny, if
it was not tragic naivety.
He then criticizes the University Working Party, without seeing that
they behaved with the same servile cowardice as his own, serving him
with the punishment decided by their Good Masters. At least, he
recognizes that this "made [him] feel and behave like a
victim." He insists:

At no time was I permitted to
cross-examine or question my accusers directly -- which any court
in the land would have permitted -- and my written request for
mediation with my accusers was denied.

To note: in a photographed letter,
we can read from Shapiro, one of the persecuters of Leuchter in the
USA, of Holocaust Survivors and Friends in Pursuit of Justice, the
following admission:

"Unfortunately we have
collected quite a file on these people and their activities".

" Dr Fudge and I prefer the
article to be posted here, in the interests of public access,
rather than have it available only on antisemitic or
politically-inspired web sites. Neither Dr Fudge nor I support
those web sites in any way."

We object to the qualification but
we do not need "support" from anybody. We are sure that
ideas support themselves. As for public access, we believe we have a
far wider readership than the little heroes of our strory.

The atmosphere in NZ universities
is still gloomy:

Now I hear that Canterbury
University authorities have asked all History staff not to
communicate with the media on either the "Hayward
Affair" or the "Fudge Affair," and have also
instructed Dr Fudge not to discuss either affair with students.
Although the University authorities are doubtless trying to put
these controversies behind them, they are also shutting down
debate and the healthy exchange of ideas. What must their students
think?

We are then treated to a series of
newspaper articles, which we have also used to illustrate the case
in the past. (See above) With that caveat:

Prior experience told me that
this journalist had an agenda. I knew it, and worried about the
result of his bias, but felt determined to prove that I have done
nothing to be ashamed of. I agreed to be interviewed.

Given that Mr Hubbard apparently
sees this alleged heresy -- Holocaust denial -- as deserving of
active retribution, I wonder where he places it in terms of other
offenses. Is it worse than white-collar crime, tax evasion,
driving under the influence, car theft, burglary, assault with
intent, rape, murder?

It's a good question, we know
that.

Then comes the Listener
article by Philip Matthews, a highly politically motivated
pro-establishment journalist. [See above]. The interesting feature
is that the article is intersped with Hayward's comments. Some of
them could justify further comments but the reader may find by
himself, if he wants to go into details. Hayward is dishonest in his
turn when he says: "I did not remember reading Mr Eaton's
thesis. " This guy is not a good pal.
Then Hayward tries to sell us his literary production, and the
favorable reviews he got.
Growing more and more pathetic, he then proceeds to convince us that
he has condemned Hitler, repeatedly, and he offers evidence ! Should
we remind him that Hitler has been dead for some time ? Then, he
offers proof that he is not "culturally insensitive". All
that is quite ridiculous. Having no spine contrives him into
producing bloody limbs, to attract our generosity. The poor wretched
is positively begging. But he never dares to bite the hand that
slaps him or the boot that kicks him. He is a kind of golum, by his
own doing.

In another file, he publishes his
"complete, unaltered, Main Submission to the Canterbury Working
Party" in response to the expensive report given by the
pseudo-expert Richard Evans:

"I was amazed by what I
considered the inaccurate and mistake-riddled historical
scholarship within the former submission but initially daunted by
eminent Professor Evans' heavy-weight report.

Nowhere does he dare to say that
Evans is a nut and a greedy exploiter of Jewish gullibility. He just
says:

"Actually, I humbly submit
that his description of my thesis as "thoroughly tendentious,
biased and dishonest" is -- if I apply to his report the
criteria he applied to my thesis -- no less applicable to his
report."

We got word that the publisher of Hayward's thesis in pdf format,
Gengis Khan Publishers Online, from Ulaan Baator, are publishing
Hayward's Main Submission, which can be seen on his websiste at

A very interesting piece indeed, because for the first time, Hayward
defends his work in a close combat attitude with the Working Group,
a group subjected to intense bowel movements due to fear and panic
of the Jews.

The final touch is to be found in
a small piece titled "Read the thesis ?"
From it, it is clear that Hayward wishes people to actually read his
thesis, before making an opnion on it.. This is quite logical.
But he complains about those nasty characters who have put the
thesis online for the benefit of the average reader, which is less
logical:

I am aware that some web sites
are posting what they claim is an exact copy of my thesis with no
changes or alterations.
Given that these web sites are posting the thesis in violation of
my rights as an author, and against my often-expressed wishes, I
cannot vouch for the accuracy of the text they are posting.
[There, the logic is lost. "Accuracy" and
"rights" do not belong to the same category.]I cannot guarantee that the
thesis is, word-for-word, exactly and completely what I submitted
to the University of Canterbury over a decade ago. [Why
? He could just check.]Moreover, some of the web
sites posting what they claim is my thesis are unmistakably
antisemitic or otherwise racially motivated sites.
[This is not our case. We are totally indifferent in the
matter of something we believe does not exist: race. What we know
is ONE HUMAN RACE. ] It
seems most unfortunate that my thesis is introduced and analysed
on these sites by conspiracy theorists and cranks, whose
explanations of events are far from accurate. [This
means he does not agree with what he supposes is our position. But
who cares ? ]I therefore recommend that
if anyone wants to read my old thesis in order to make sense of
this New Zealand controversy, he or she should obtain a copy on
loan directly from the University of Canterbury Library. From this
library they will get an exact copy of the thesis as originally
submitted. It is true that they will also get the Working Party
Report, but at least the text of the thesis and my 2000 addendum
will be genuine and unaltered.
The University of Canterbury's website address is:
<http://library.canterbury.ac.nz/>
Its postal address is: The Library, The University of Canterbury,
Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand

OK. If anyone want to register his
name and address with the University of Canterbury which, as we have
seen, does not refuse anything to the New Zealand Jewish (and
Zionist) Though Police Federation, then this is a golden
opportunity.. Circulation control, they call it. Just another bad
joke.
But there is more to it:

Please note:
I can confirm that the following three web sites are posting
versions of my thesis that are different to the one I submitted to
the University of Canterbury over a decade ago.
That is, these websites are not posting an accurate copy of my
thesis.
[This is simply not
true. Why on earth should we change anything?, as we publish
scores of other books and articles. Nobody ever complained about
tempering. If anything, we corrected some of his misprints. ]
Moreover, the versions they are posting are illegal; they are on
the internet without my permission and, indeed, in violation of my
expressed wishes.
<http://joelhayward.tripod.com/hay.pdf>
<http://www.aaargh-international.org/engl/engl.html>
<http://joelhayward.tripod.com/hay.pdf>

I object to the violation of my
rights. I alone have the right to publish my thesis in any form
that I wish, or not to publish it as I wish, and no-one else has
ANY rights in these matters.
I am unhappy to see my thesis posted on a site that expresses
conspiratorial political and racial views that I do not support.
I do not favour censorship, and can inform you that legal public
access to the thesis already exists elsewhere, as described below.
But I do want lawful and fair control over my property as well as
the context of any publication or dissemination. I thus ask you to
take action against the specified site(s).
Your law-violating site,s owners know that the only legal public
access to my thesis is from:The James Hight Library, the University of Canterbury,
Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand. Web: http://www.canterbury.ac.nz
They also know that copyright law protects the thesis copies held
by that afore-mentioned library, and that any reproduction/
transmission/ copying or internet dissemination is an unlawful
act.
I also object to the typographical/scanning errors and
inaccuracies in the version of the thesis posted.
I will file a copyright infringement lawsuit unless immediate
action is taken against this website.
Yours sincerely
Dr Joel Hayward, P.O. Box 8065, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North, New
Zealand 5301, Fax: 0064 6 3540184

Of course we remain quite
unimpressed by this bunch of half-lies and half-truths. But we
comply. The pressure is not on us, but on the providers and a law
case costs a fortune in some countries, whatever the results. We
know Hayward is agitating empty threats. He is in a complete
contradiction: on one hand, he aknowledges his thesis is a public
thing, available from the University, and on the other hand he
objects to see it on sites he dislikes. What stops him to display
the thesis himself, in the most accurate way ? He fears the NZ
Jewish Federation which would consider such a publication as a casus
belli, a declaration of war. He chickens out. He is attacking us
while telling to his Jewish Masters: "Look, Bwana, I am a good
kid, I kick the poor devils, ya see ?"
Pathetic is the word.

This text has been displayed on
the Net, and forwarded to you as a tool for educational purpose,
further research, on a non commercial and fair use basis, by the
International Secretariat of the Association des Anciens Amateurs de
Récits de Guerre et d'Holocauste (AAARGH). The E-mail of the
Secretariat is <aaarghinternational-at-hotmail.com>.
The postal address is: PO Box 81475, Chicago, IL 60681-0475, USA.
We see the act of displaying a written document on Internet as the
equivalent of displaying the said document on the shelves of a
library open to the public. It costs us a modicum of labor and
money. The only benefit accrues to the reader who, we surmise,
thinks by himself. We have no reason to believe that the author
agrees with any other document displayed on this site. We do not
request permission from authors living in countries like Germany,
France, Switzerland, Canada, China, Angola, where freedom of
expression id denied by law: they are not free to consent. This
applies to the case of New Zealand too, considering the very heavy
pressures stemming from New Zealand's and Australia's main Jewish
organizations, demanding the annulment of Dr. Hayward's thesis.
Displaying such a threatened document is our usual response to
bigotry, hate, parochialism and censorship..
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ARTICLE 19.
<Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference
and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers.>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948.You downloaded this document from <http://aaargh-international.org/engl/hay/hayindex.html>